Trans women are still women

[Lostcat]

AIBU to share what the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of women in the Equalities Act does and does not do/say/mean.

Although there are now moves to take the ruling and embed discrimination against trans women into uk law, this was not the intention of the Supreme Court judgement. In fact, the judges made it very explicit that politicians, media and activists shouldn’t seek to weaponise the judgement for political gain. Unfortunately that is exactly what people (including a whole host of mumsnetters) are doing.

So what does the judgement do?

Myth: the UK Supreme Court says trans women are not women

Myth: the ruling means trans women can’t claim legal protection as women

Myth: the ruling says you can ban trans women from women’s loos or other women only spaces

What the ruling actually says:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”

The ruling says that in sex-based provisions under the Equalities Act 2010, sex means “biological sex” and refers to one of two biological sexes.

The ruling reiterates that trans women are protected from sex discrimination as women - because they experience the same sexism as women do.

The ruling affirms also that trans people are protected under the law from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

As before (and as the law has stated since 2004) trans women, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate, should be treated as women and given access to the relevant women’s services - as before, an exception may be made under limited circumstances where the need to exclude trans women may be proportionate (the law gives women’s refuges as an example of a space where this may be necessary, sometimes).

The ruling merely states that in legal references to “sex” the words “man” and “woman” in the sex discrimination clauses of the equalities act refer to “biological” women and men - it is merely about the use of language in legal cases of discrimination.

The very real impact of this on trans and non-binary people’s lives comes from misinterpretations of what is meant or intended by the ruling.
The trans community is fearful because of the inevitable spin manufactured by biased news media and the powerful gender critical lobby (including wealthy and high profile people such as JK Rowling who claim they are “silenced” by trans advocates).

I know others have answered this but as you seem to be having some difficulty understanding I’ll try to explain it again.

Female refers to the reproductive role of producing large gametes (in the case of humans, ova), as opposed to male, which is the reproductive role of producing small gametes (sperm).

Of course there are DSDs [Disorders of Sexual Development] and other reasons which mean some individuals don’t produce any gametes at all. But that doesn’t change the fact that every human being is either female or male.

The most helpful way to understand it is to see those two reproductive roles as pathways. A baby develops in utero along one or the other of these two pathways, organised around the production of either large or small gametes.

If there are no developmental abnormalities, a baby with XX chromosomes develops along the female (large gametes) pathway and one with XY along the male (small gametes) pathway.

That is the vast majority of people.

There are a very few people who are born with DSDs that are outside the usual XX female, XY male pattern.

Many of them will be infertile, but all of them develop in utero along one of the two reproductive pathways, their bodies organised around the production of either large or small gametes, whether they actually produce those gametes or not.

If they developed in utero along the large gametes pathway, they’re female.

If they developed in utero along the small gametes pathway, they’re male.

There you go.

I presume you don’t need me to explain “adult” and “human” to you?

And just ap note on the “stats” around “intersex”: the number of people with DSDs leading to genuine (initial) ambiguity around a persons sex has been artificially inflated by those arguing for the breakdown of sex-based boundaries by including those conditions where there is absolutely no ambiguity at all, such as hypospadias, a condition in boys where the urethra doesn’t open from its usual position at the head of the penis.

Quite clearly, a child with a penis and testicles is unambiguously male, but trans rights activists tend to include conditions like this in their unfounded claims that being “intersex” (itself a hotly contested term, and considered offensive by many people with DSDs) is “as common as having red hair”.

Trans people are protected from discrimination in the Equality Act on the basis of the protected chararacteristic of gender reassignment. This does not require you to have taken hormones or having surgery. You merely have to say you are trans to be covered. This doesn't mean you have to be treated as though you are the opposite sex.

This is also separate to a gender recognition certificate which allows you to change the sex on your birth certificate. Surgery or hormones are not a requirement to be issued with a gender recognition certificate

But there are other time when I want transwomen to be included without other men having rights to our space and now it feels like there’s no way to achieve that.

Including transwomen is including men. You can't include some men and not others because you'd be discriminating against the other men. Either something is fine for both sexes or it's single sex.

Plus in reality you can't include transwomen and not other men because any man becomes a transwoman just by saying he is one. That's the definition, blame Stonewall. So if you allow transwomen already, any man who wants can already come in.

Thanks but I’m not sure this quite answers my question.

So trans people are protected from being discriminated against on the basis of being trans, but that doesn’t mean they can use women-only spaces because the ruling means that’s not discrimination - am I understanding right?

I suppose its possible that I've not spotted a transwoman in a shop or walking along the pavement, but I can assure you that I would instantly know someone was a transwoman (ie a man) if I came upon them in a public loo or a changing room. Each and every one is just so obvious, even when they've had surgery to try and remove Adam's apples etc. I also have incredibly accurate gaydar.

The whole movement is about invading women's spaces. That is their raison d'etre. Because they are women you see. But they are not as we all know.

Third spaces are NOT what most of them want, since that negates their battle to be accepted as women, and furthermore to insist that we budge up to facilitate them.

So OK, third spaces are the ideal solution, but I doubt it will satisfy them much. Their fight will be over then. Hopefully.

You should put your superpowers to good

Yes, that's correct. Excluding a transwomen from a female single sex space is not discrimination because they are male and all males are excluded.

Not employing a transwoman because they are trans when you would have employed a man is discrimination due to their PC of GR

Emily Davison did not die so a man in a dress could masquerade as a woman in women's spaces, it's the height of male privilege they can whack on a skirt and expect everyone to bow down to them and call them Susan instead of Simon.

Trans women are trans women - gender and XY
Women are Women - sex and XX

A women is a biological women and born female = XX
A transwomen is not a biological women, not born female and not a woman = XY

Single sex spaces are based on sex. So relate to a persons sex not their gender.

A GRC or any form or level of transitioning does not change a persons sex. They will always be trans women or trans men.

All people are protected by the Equalities Act.

So in your mind a woman with CAIS has a body “organised around the reproductive role of producing small gametes” so is definitionally male and should be forced to use men’s facilities according to your understanding of law? And all of this you believe is not only obvious, but mandated by science and justice?

If you want to include transwomen then you can have a mixed gender, queer-friendly gathering that’s open to everyone - surely that’s the best solution?

It isn’t realistic or practical to have a women’s group and then dilute that. And the reason for that is perhaps because of some men who have ruined it for the rest of them. Because on an individual level I’ve absolutely met trans people I’d be ok being in, say, a knitting group with (to borrow an example from further up the thread) but the others have ruined it for them. And that can’t be women’s problem.

I hadn’t really given any of this a lot of thought until the ruling, but have been doing a lot of reading and thinking about it now.

Do you think that’s what being trans is, whacking on a skirt?

Yes.

Sex = biological sex.

The PC of gender reassignment protects transpeople from being illegally discriminated against because of being trans. It's a completely separate thing from the PC of sex.

Of course.
This is what the Supreme Court has explained and is really very logical.

The Supreme Court has ruled a person sex is based on their biology.

Because to form it as "for women" in the first place you need to have a reason to first make it single sex. you can't claim your service needs to be single sex (which requires a proportionate and legitimate reason), then proceed to include some people of the opposite sex (using another PC as the reason supposedly) whilst excluding all other people of the opposite sex. As you've just made a nonsense of your own reason for claiming single sex requirements.

Besides in practice those other men can just walk in and announce they are TW

Saying there may be some males that will get away with their deception in the female single sex space - is not the moral high ground argument you think it is, on the contrary...

It’s really not what they ruled at all. It’s really a problem that people believe this.

They are living as a woman but still have male anatomy. I wouldn’t want to take my daughter into a female changing room where there’s trans women. I can totally understand why the hospital staff took this to court. Remember the trans woman in a female prison who raped a woman? I also don’t think they should be in a men’s prison they would be vulnerable. But a trans male also shouldn’t be in a male prison. Maybe a separate wing for them.

No, no male people at all are allowed in spaces designated for female people only.

As spannasaurus says, “gender reassignment” is one of the PCs in the EA, and it covers everyone who says they identify as “trans”, or may be perceived as being “trans”, regardless of what steps they may or may not have taken to change their appearance etc.

It simply means someone can’t be refused a service in a shop or restaurant, for example, or be discriminated against by an employer, or in housing or health provision etc, because they identify as trans.

It has nothing to do with accessing single sex provision for the opposite sex to theirs.

They may of course access the single sex provision for their sex, just like anyone else.

The Equality Act. Not equalities.

And that’s all Bollocks. trans women are protected under the basis of gender reassignment, but they are NOT protected from sex discrimination on the basis of being women, because they are not women.

Women’s rights and the rights of trans women conflict. And women’s rights must take precedence and must not be lost.

You have totally misinterpreted the judgement. Well done.

🤦‍♀️ FFS. I’ve heard it all now.

I presume you don’t need me to explain “adult” and “human” to you?
Given the number of middle-aged blokes prancing in little girls' dresses and pretending to be them and the number who are trans furries, I am afraid that it is only a matter of time and numbers before that happens.Male sexual paraphilias tend to cluster.

Your OP suggests you have wildly misunderstood the judgement.

You can disagree with it, but you can’t make it different to what it is.