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).

If that's the one from the DoJ I'd rather not see those images again. 😮

@GreenFriedTomato Did they really piss up the place? Could they be any more male. Odious. Their territorial pissings in ladies' with selfies for proof will finally be a thing of the past. "Bu.. but I just wanted to let the ladies know a man trespassed on their spaces and managed to leave without r_ing anyone. See how noble we are? Open the gates to men now." Their contempt for women is disturbing.

Sorry if this has been addressed in the thread but this is wrong: "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 judgment explicitly says that in the case of female only services transwomen with or without a GRC can be excluded. They are not, for the purposes of the Equality Act, treated as women and given access to women's only services. Under the Equality Act, transwomen are male.

The way the law works is that if you want a female only single sex space, that excludes males, you are entitled to do this provided it is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. This is a very easy threshold to meet. A single sex space will be proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim if its for the purpose of dignity, privacy, safety, etc (so includes female only changing rooms for example.)

The Equality Act also says that it will not be discrimination against trans people to exclude them from a single sex space if, as above, the single sex space is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. So if you satisfy the proportionate/legitimate aim test and can exclude males, you can also automatically exclude transwomen(with or without a GRC) from a female only space.

Contrary to what OP says, this is a very different interpretation of how trans activists have viewed the law. Their position was that in single sex spaces males could be excluded (what they call cis men) but transwomen with or without GRCS are treated as women and automatically included in female only spaces unless (in very limited circumstances) it is necessary to exclude transwomen. This is not what the Supreme Court has ruled. Essentially, if males can be excluded from single sex female only spaces then automatically transwomen can be excluded as well.

The Court pointed out that if its proportionate and legitimate to exclude males then, if you then decide to include transwomen in that space, that would be discriminatory against males as there is no good reason to let in a subset of males to a female only space while excluding other males. So in essence, if you permit transwomen into a female only space it ceases legally to be a 'single sex space' and becomes a mixed sex space that, by definition, must permit the entry of all males in order to not be discriminatory.

If you have a female only single sex space, in order for that to remain a single sex space it just exclude ALL males including transwomen.

So I'm afraid this is a rather big difference compared to how the law was previously understood.

I just like to challenge falsehoods because actually they don't add to greater shared understanding of a clearly very complex issue. I completely agree that many people will instantly know a trans woman is a transwoman and not a cis woman but to pretend this is 100% accurate and so, by implication the acid test, is actually a troubling assertion and could lead to greater conflict.

Women have 'pissed' on transactivists strawberries (because they very likely to still have them!).

The term trans person could be seen as much more acceptable to both sexes if people were willing.

There are women
There are men
And there are trans people.
It's simple really.

Indeed I think deliberately calling transwomen, men is unnecessarily provocative.

I really don’t think they think it through, do they?

The thing is, they can piss where they want. It's women who can't.

It's necessary to make it clear why women want all men, including those who say they are women, excluded from single sex spaces.

If we say we want certain women excluded it becomes confusing.
If we say we want transwomen excluded it leads to accusations of transphobia.
If we say we want men excluded it makes it clear we wanted them excluded because of their sex and not their gender identity.

IRL I'm happy to respect names and pronouns, I'm not an arsehole, but in discussions about women's rights I favour unambiguous language. Correctly sexing someone is not intended to be provocative, just a statement of fact.

Transwomen are still men.
In fact the only thing all transwomen have in common is that they always have been and always will be men.

Stating the truth is provocative? The alternative is pandering to delusion: why should anyone do that?

Who is being provoked by the statement of a simple fact in the context of discussing sex and gender?

See the words of Kathleen Stock.. there’s no need for any more debate.

7 people have reacted to this post- 6 are “laugh” reactions. This is the problem- people just don’t understand what it is to be trans and what is at stake

What does it matter though? They shouldn’t be in women’s spaces wether they pass or not

Well you're not going the the right way about it if yiu think what you've posted is accurate!

The jig is up. Men who 'feel' they are women (what does that even mean?! These men like dresses and makeup so must be women - how fucking reductive is that. Transactivism, for all its 'progressive' tripe, is completely rooted in grim stereotypes of what a man or woman must look or behave like. Either that or they are just autogyneophiles) no longer have to be pandered to by women pretending biology doesn't exist. It does. And our sex based rights are important for dignity and safety. If that upsets men, tough. Crack on and wear a dress all you like, call yourself a transwoman all you like, but this has been a huge relief and a huge win for women's rights. Again. I cannot believe we are still doing this.

Yet you, after all this time, still don't understand what is at stake for the female sex class and for womens rights. You just don't see or understand what is at stake.

We understand womens rights are at stake.

I'm not arrogant enough to claim to understand what its like to be someone else.

I've asked you SEVERAL times to define woman gender and man gender, and you have refused to do so, and then whine that people don't understand?! Ridiculous.

If a fox is going to be picked on by other foxes, you don't keep that fox safe by putting him in the henhouse.

Why do women have to understand what something is like for men though? We’ve enough to be on with. Is it SO MUCH to ask to get men to sort their own shit out? Men (including TW) don’t give a shit about what it’s like for women. Why do we have to put work in understanding people who fucking hate us?

Of course I do. I am a (non trans) woman.

Have you ever considered that it might be pushback for the continual 'transwomen are women, transwomen are women, transwomen ARE WOMEN! Edict that females have had shoved in our faces for years.

Do you ever consider that we found that 'transwomen are women' mantra not just deliberately provocative, but very upsetting?

Have a think about it.