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).

One question and totally irrelevant to the discussion.

But if trans women feel uncomfortable in male spaces, shouldn't be there a campaign for men to be more tolerant and inclusive?
Wouldn't that be a more relevant?

Sometimes I want something. But I can't take it, because it's not mine. Even if I want it really badly.

And mostly we learn this as toddlers.

Transmen in reality...

..surely a trans woman wants to use the same space as someone who was born a woman

Yes, but they are not entitled to do so-women only spaces as determined by biological sex can be reserved only for biological women.

Which is why third spaces/better provision for transpeople should have been the focus before, but now is an absolute necessity.

Uk population is £68m so roughly £34m women. If 0.5% of the population is trans rhats roughly 170,000 transmen. 1% of woman are 6ft is taller so 1700 transmen over 6ft. Not sure how many transmen have phalloplasty but I assume a minority.

With so few 6ft+ transman who have had genital surgery and fully pass as men its surprising how many posters claim to know one.

I think the pertinent part is that it will now be permissable under law to restrict some spaces to women and exclude transwomen, provided it can be shown to be reasonable the space should be segregated on the grounds of sex. If TW want to challenge this, they will now need to argue that the space shouldn't be segregated in the first place, which will be extremely difficult in some cases, rather than argue their rights to inclusion on the basis of being women.

Equality Act. This is the UK, not the USA.

There is no need for anyone to go peeking under toilet doors, there is plenty of video evidence online of men in skirts masturbating in women's toilets both in cubicles and communal areas.

There seems to be quite a large community of men who get off on transgressing women's boundaries.

Quite.

Beautifully put.

It's legitimate discrimination. It means we discriminate between male and female people - and, in situations where single-sex is appropriate, we include one sex and exclude the other.

The remarks above about a sports team choosing to include trans people are incomplete. If a women's team chooses to include transwomen, it means they choose to be mixed sex. Should they reject a man on grounds of his sex, he could sue them for sex discrimination. The comparator for his position is the transwoman on the team, an included male.

There's only two reasons why people post memes in a discussion - they either have nothing else to say in defence of their point or they have such contempt for the opposing side they can't be bothered to say something meaningful. In this case it's probably both. Shows the level of discourse and good faith, does it not?

I think they identify as 6 foot. It’s the current “gotcha”, it’s tiring

That won’t work because for a lot of trans women. There’s a huge sexual element to it. It’s the sexual satisfaction they get about having sex as a “woman”. And having the experience of having sex with a man as a “woman”. A lot of the motivations by these people is purely sexual/kink

YABU and flogging a dead horse (what a great, if now somewhat archaic, expression that is).

This two marker sex and gender would need an opt out for gender because there’s no single definition for gender as far as I’m aware.

I suppose the could have two markers

1. Sex
2. Which regressive stereotype to you identify as

You missed the point - it isn't The Equalities Act (2010)

It's The Equality Act (2010)

Because organisations are interpreting it to mean that all facilities that cater specifically for women must enforce the exclusion of trans women . That would be absolutely devastating for the exercise of (almost all) trans women’s human rights and would also be a clear violation of their right to be legally recognised as women (under the gender recognition act 2004) and their protection against discrimination under separate provisions in the EA .

I don’t think the judgement means what you think it means. There are services and jobs that are restricted to a single sex for a fair and proportionate reason under the equalities act. The judgement has clarified that when the equalities act talks about women and sex they mean biological sex.

So where a service such as refuges, rape counselling, communal changing rooms says it’s for women it means biological women. when a woman needs to be stripsearched it’ll be done by a biological woman. Transwomen should never have been in there but have pushed their way in over the years demonstrating a worrying degree of toxic masculinity which has led to pushback.

I don’t really understand why anyone says this threatens their existence. All it means is that you can access single sex services based on your biological sex. There are no public toilets where I live so I’m often stuck buying stuff to use a unisex cubicle at the coffeeshop.

He is right. People are legally allowed to have single sex spaces/activities based on biological sex and they won’t be breaking the law, but they don’t have to base it on biological sex.

It seems fair enough to me. If someone wanted to set up a women and trans women group/space, it shouldn’t be illegal. If someone wanted to have a biological women only group/space it shouldn’t be illegal. The law is meant to protect people’s freedom.

I was going to address this section of Lostcat’s post as it’s the most important, but Cyclebabble has already said it all.

A trans person cannot be discriminated against for being trans. Someone can’t refuse them employment on that grounds, in the same way that someone can’t be refused employment just because they are female/black/gay etc. The judgment makes this clear.

What the judgment does NOT say is that trans people being told they can’t use facilities/spaces of their “acquired gender” is discrimination. In fact, the judgment stating that “biological sex is the defining factor” means that trans people being excluded from single sex spaces is not discrimination.

But I’m sure the disingenuous attempts to twist words and meanings will carry on, whether it’s Lostcat or Amnesty. It was the same after the Cass Report. But the law is clear so they can grumble all they like, they just look like tantruming toddlers at best and people who are wilfully misunderstanding simple statements at worst.

Of course I understand that, but those people can never be open about that motivation. So they've gone down the 'I am really a woman' route.

Thankfully that is now closed to them

Women have been ‘fearful’ of the encroachment of males in female only spaces and the attempt to denigrate our unique womanhood into some kind of op in or out scheme, since this all began and have experience of ‘the inevitable spin’ as orchestrated by the ‘powerful’ and ‘high profile people’ in the trans activist/lobbyist’s community.

Thank you so much for your explainer of the Supreme Court ruling. Us silly women really do not understand what it means as much as you do and we certainly do not know what a woman is as much as TW and the community do!

You must admit though, it is one step in the right direction. Let us have our moment please’

Transwomen are men, biologically and legally. HTH

Because organisations are interpreting it to mean that all facilities that all facilities that cater specifically for women but enforce the exclusion of trans women

This sentence isn't structured very clearly but I assume you mean organisations are interpreting it to mean all women's spaces now need to become female only? Well yes, if it's lawful and legitimate to have a female only space, then it should be female only. That doesn't impinge on anyone's rights, because men don't have the right to be treated as women in law, regardless of a GRC, where the law allows for FEMALE only provision. It was a mistake that many organisations made that needs to be corrected.