Supreme Court ruling and previous cases

[AndSoFinally]

The SC were quite clear in stating that their ruling was not redefining the EQ from this moment onwards, it was adding clarity as to what the EQ had actually always been

What will this mean for previous rulings that have gone in TWs favour? I'm thinking about cases like the woman in Australia who was successfully sued for not allowing a TW to join her women's only forum, etc. Turns out she was absolutely within her rights all along to refuse admission. Will this judgement now be over turned? Will any money that has been paid out in compensation have to be paid back? Just interested as to what it will mean for these judgements

It's a clarification of the UK Equality Act and doesn't affect other countries.

Oh of course 🤦🏻

No similar cases in the UK?

As far as I know, GC women have won their cases in court re their beliefs.

Change is happening. Today the FA said no more mixed teams.

There are some ongoing cases (Sandie Peggie, Darlington nurses, Sarah Summers) that could be affected.

I don't think Landrover went to appeal - that could now. Probably others.

While technically true, judges in common law countries do look at judgments in similar cases from other common law countries. This judgment will also be politically influential.

Sorry, my reply was for you, but I didn’t manage to link you.

So do pubs etc have to provide single sex spaces or can they avoid it by going completely gender neutral? Because a few companies are coming out saying they have gender neutral urinal toilets now bigots and transphobes not welcome

They can theoretically go mixed sex but it would possibly be discriminatory towards women, particularly if half the 'mixed sex' facilities have urinals.

In a lot of cases it will depend I think on whether it a) hits their bottom line or b) someone is willing to take them to court. Many organisations will have to be forced to follow the law, it will just be possible to do it now.

The Australian case mentioned in the OP is not going to be overturned because of this judgement. We'll see if it has any influence.

That’s true. I think it will have future influence though.

Also because our Australian legislation is not dissimilar, it may be possible to run the same basic arguments (I am not a lawyer, just looking at the wording of the laws, when they were brought in and the changing social context since then).

If anyone was thinking of donating to Sarah Summers' legal action, a kind person is currently matching any donations made by the end of today up to £2500.

Just Google Sarah Summers Brighton and you'll find the Crowd Justice page.

There are a couple of judicial reviews from 2021:

FDJ v MoJ:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prison-policy-judicial-review-ruling-confirms-trans-rights-do-conflict-with-womens-rights/

AEA v EHRC:
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

I'm not sure it would make any difference to appeal these now the law has been clarified anyway. Maybe to get costs back?

Thank goodness the UK courts ruled a woman is an adult human female and in USA trump has put a stop to all transgender ops and meds. Activists can now go back to their day jobs instead of campaigning against “gender affirming” ops in children. A special thanks in UK for the women (too many to list) who fought for our rights and in USA to transman Scott newgent who helped stop these disgusting ops and Ms Gains who fought for women’s rights in sport. PS I’m not a Trump supporter or a Labour supporter in UK.
Daisy Hermore

That would be nice, @DrewHormordr but unfortunately there are a load of orgs which are indicating they will not respect the SC decision because they think the judges are 'bigots', or that EHRC are taking 'too literal' an interpretation of the law in their interim guidance, or that it's too 'complex', or that they don't need to do anything until EHRC produce new statutory code.

It's going to take a lot of effort, and probably quite a few court cases, in order to 'win the win', as Helen Joyce phrases it. Consider that there are still discrimination cases being brought on the grounds of 'gender critical beliefs' four years after Forstater v. CGD Europe confirmed that these are protected.

Then we also have our work cut out with the data bill which looks like ushering in self-ID by the back door, the proposed conversion practices ban, which risks outlawing explorative therapy for gender-distressed people (including children, the majority of whom are same sex attracted), the proposed puberty blockers clinical trial, which there is no way to conduct ethically and which will profoundly harm more children ...

And that's just the UK. There are women and girls around the world whose rights have been destroyed by this batshit ideological agenda, and children and vulnerable adults who are being harmed.

If they don’t follow the letter of the law they will be reported and if necessary sued. They can complain as much as they like. They can’t cherry pick which laws they follow. The bullies are heading back into the box. The public has had enough of them and their abuse of women and girls. All of the stores in my city have stopped mixed sex changing. And those who have “transwomen” players on football teams have got rid of them. Yes they whine and complain but they can’t fight the law. Good riddance to every last one of them.

Wasn’t there another NHS case 2 or 3 years ago where a Trans Identified Male won a discrimination case for being called out for walking around naked from the waist down in the women’s changing room? Can’t recall all the details of the case but I think there was pretty awful language used against the TiM that is unlikely to have been WORIADS, so it may not be directly relevant.

There was an earlier NHs one, I think. There was definitely a supermarket one. And Landrover.

Hard to keep track of which is which, with such multitudes of 'things that never happen'.

The UKSC judgment can be used as persuasive precedent in Tickle v Giggle when it goes to the Australian High Court later.

It's not binding on the judges there, but generally they do take into account case law and statutes from other Commonwealth countries, particularly the United Kingdom, when making their decisions.

I agree that we need to “win the win” still. The number of organisations who are indicating an intent to ignore the law is worrying. Hopefully their liability insurers will make them see sense.