To say not one single organisation has come out in support of the court ruling for women's rights?

[SwordOfOmens]

Aside from actual women's rights orgs, I've not seen any organisations make positive statements about the court ruling.

I'd love to be wrong, but my experience has been either silence or a call to arms against "anti trans bigots".

YABU - I've seen loads
YANBU - I've not seen any

@Grammarnut plenty of people cared about transmen, when looking at trans rights. It's only Mumsnet and JK who appeared to think that the term 'trans' meant 'man in drag'.

Because the translobby, the men thinking they are women type, prove over and over that they are in fact Jen by their bullying and threatening behavior.
People and businesses have literally been bullied into compliance .

The interveners on the trans side at the supreme court were quite happy for transmen to lose their pregnancy and maternity rights under the Equality Act. Which doesn't suggest that they were too concerned about transmen's rights.

In what way? (Genuine question)

I would have thought laws against pregnancy discrimination apply to a pregnant person and are separate to other rights?

This is utter nonsense. The FWS case specifically championed the rights of transmen. The opposition were quite happy for transmen to lose their maternity rights in law.

I would have thought laws against pregnancy discrimination apply to a pregnant person and are separate to other rights?

No they only apply to women in law

Nope. Pregnancy laws all relate to women, if you aren't a woman you aren't entitled to maternity pay or rights because they only apply to women.

I would say the two most important organisations have - the EHRC and the Government!

How embarrassing for you to just repeat what amounts to propaganda that has been spread by those who don’t do the extra mile to find out more.

Beira’s Place, Joanne Rowling’s rape crisis centre, includes services for ‘transmen’. Ie female people with transgender identities.

Many posters on MN have spoken of their daughters who have declared transgender identities. It is what led so many here. Those you call transmen.

You sound like you simply don’t have clue what you are talking about.

Interesting. The government guidance talks about pregnant employees throughout, as far as I can see.

www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-rights

I beg to differ. Apart from the dehumanising language of the NHS who worried about women who identified out of womanhood, all the traffic everywhere, and most currently re the SC ruling has been about TiM - transwomen. Suddenly transmen are all over the place, having no place to pee (as if that was what it was all about) because they can be used as female victims of the 'sex is biological' ruling. But it's the men who are actually throwing their toys out of the pram. As usual, women are being used to validate what men want - access to women's spaces.

That's because it's guidance, rephrased to pander to genderism.

This is the actual law. Have a read.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/18

The SC case was about those people with a GRC. Very few transmen or transwomen have a GRC, the SC said that there were less than 8,500 people with a GRC.

Prior to this case, it was thought that transmen with a GRC were to be treated as though they were actual men. That means that they cannot suffer discrimination when it comes to pregnancy etc.

However, that never did apply to transmen without a GRC; they were always women.

I suspect that the government guidance was written at a time when people were trying to "be kind" and perhaps believed that transmen without a GRC would be so distraught by being called a woman that they could not cope.

There were so many instances of the NHS and other bodies referring to "pregnant people" just to avoid the possibility that transmen without a GRC might be offended.

It's in the judgement, the protections under the Equality Act for pregnancy and maternity only apply to women, so if a pregnant transman was a man under the Equality Act she would have no right to maternity pay oflr protections. It was part of how the judges explained why they ruled as they did.

Thanks all, for clarifying.

(To note, the guidance uses “employee” throughout, I can’t see any use of “pregnant person” or similar, so it didn’t read as jarring to me)

If you had a Gender Recognition certificate you became a man and so lost benefits only accessible to women. The SC decision means that transmen remain biological women and so now have access to benefits designed for women.

Noted and thanks for explaining it was material largely in the case of a GRC. I would imagine the numbers of trans men with both a GRC and a pregnancy were very small, but I appreciate the clarification was needed in law.

Are they “afraid” in terms of attack or just “afraid” people will take their business elsewhere?

Maybe they don't agree with it?

Organisations that have loudly embraced the "TWAW, no debate" rhetoric can hardly be expected to celebrate this ruling. They're probably wondering how to discreetly roll back

Same with NHS re Sandie Peggie

Organisations that adopted a neutral stance will continue to do so

But, it's already announced that transwomen can no longer play alongside females.https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3xg4l7774o

I'd class that as progress. And other organisations will no doubt follow suit