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).

At last, you've understood something!

Is this the case though? I thought the ruling was to clarify what a woman is (RIDICULOUS that we needed this definition at all) not to prevent trans from entering women's spaces or sports?

If you would care to read through the comments you will see that @Kardamyli2 said first,

"..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."

I was commentating on what a ridiculous comment she made.

It's sad you have no understanding of how ridiculous you sound.

It's an evolved instinct, probably going back to before the time Homo sapiens emerged. I'm a dog-owner and my dog was always more at home with women than men. Since we lived in caves, women have been in danger from marauding men and not (usually) in danger from woman. They had to be able to tell whether the figure approaching them from a distance was male or female in order to decide whether they needed to run away and hide themselves and their children. So humans developed quite sophisticated means of identifying sex through gait as well as height, stride length etc.

Likewise gaydar. Women are programmed to look for a certain sort of man (taller, older, senior in the tribe, reliable and sexually interested in them) in order to procreate.

"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" @Kardamyli2 is 100% correct.

But perhaps, @Bogginsthe3rd you are not, as defined by the SC, a woman?

What's more ridiculous, a man who insists he has changed sex and become a woman, or a woman saying she can always spot a man in womanface?

I'll leave you to ponder while I head into my garden for some fresh air.

You can hang out with anyone you like, anyone can. You can exclusively be friends with men, or over 60s or Muslims, or whatever. Groups of under 25 people aren't covered by the Equality Act. So if you have a friend group of women and transwomen that's totally your business.

But businesses and services have to abide by equality law. They have to provide their services to everyone, unless there is a legally justified reason not to. So they cannot provide restricted groups unless the restrictions are lawful

Trans people already have a law that covers them against unlawful discrimination, the Equality Act. They are covered under the PC of gender reassignment. But you can't have a law that allows some stuff eg to women transwomen but not to men, the judgement does discuss that, because that's not a coherent group. It's quite interesting reading the judgment.and seeing how they reached the conclusion they did.

As trans women is a gender based term. As women is a sex based term.
If a sport is for women that’s a sex based category so only for biological women
If it’s for trans women that’s a gender based category so only for trans women.

The woman category has been confirmed as based on biology. Nothing else!

The full SC ruling is available to watch online I’m sure.

( love the HarryPotter user name )

Yeah I can see your point. I think we are queer friendly although I’m not queer so probably not the best person to ask.

Agree that some men have ruined it for everyone.

I suppose we could argue the aim is specially to build social cohesion between women and trans women but not sure if that’s allowed and considered proportionate.

I have read a fraction of this thread and I have seen that there are so many new voices discussing this.

It is heartening. Because for so long women trying to raise the alarm have been abused by name calling, by being told that we are dinosaurs and that we would be dying out soon ( sometimes there would be the addition of ‘hopefully’ to go with it).

Each time a significant event has happened over the past few years, the pattern has been the same. I think though that this has been the biggest. Or maybe on par with Upton and NHS Fife.

Not really a sensible question is it? I do agree you need to continue your continued surveillance outside 😂

and give yer heid a wee wobble pal.

As women we are concerned and invested to ensure equality for ALL of us male or female

I agree with your last sentence!

You wait - the EU will cut your funding and/or won't pay you and you will dance to a different tune!

I know I’ve taken an interest when I hadn’t before.

I actually think saying TWAW is also harmful to trans people. Because their experience is not the same as someone who feels they were born in the right body. So they’re erasing their own experiences too by claiming to just be women.

There are numerous men in the public eye who genuinely believe they pass for female. Some have had extensive and expensive surgeries on their face and bodies and take industrial quantities of oestrogen while suppressing their testosterone. They put up filtered pictures of themselves on social media and believe they pass. It takes one glance at them in an unfiltered snap alongside real women for us to spot them instantly. Given this, the chance of your average bloke without an unlimited budget for South American plastic surgery passing is exceptionally small.

But surely if it is a singing group and all the member agreed what aim is, then that is what is appropriate? And then the answer is ‘go for it!’

am delighted. I so value your input

It's bitchy, ah ken but you have NOT progressed the debate @Bogginsthe3rd

No,.you can't have service 'to build social cohesion between women and trans women' because that's discrimination against men who don't think they're women. I personally don't know why you'd try to, I've nothing in common with transwomen as a group that I haven't with men as a group, what qualities do transwomen have that I've got in common with them that men don't have? There no transwoman personality.

@broccolienthusiast

Never a saner word
It is completely batshit isn’t it!

especially when you’re referred to as a person with a cervix instead of a woman, by a doctor!

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).

But what does ‘treated as a woman’ mean?

If there’s a necessity for a single sex-space, then it would be single-sex, and if a single-sex space isn’t necessary, it would be a mixed space.

So how does an organisation treat them as a woman? Do you mean by using their pronouns?

Agree with this...

It's as though some won't be told, don't want to hear it, clutching at that last straw.

Taking issue with the quoted post here. The law has not stated anything of the sort.

Indeed. That kind of logic is something that the extreme activists don’t consider.