Supreme court ruling

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/16/uk-supreme-court-rule-legal-definition-woman

How do we think this is going to pan out? My feeling reading the piece is that the court is going to side with GC women.....hope so but we will see.

@PottedPerennial absolutely.

Just to clarify, my "that's a stinger" remark was in regard to the TRA's who were arguing that a win for FWS would be a blow for "Trans Rights". The judgement made clear that would not be the case.

good analysis...

I wonder whether there is now finally the opportunity to more formally separate gender and sex...

sex is clearly biological as defined by this judgement
gender is the current societal interpretation of what it means to be a man or woman (dress codes / colours / hair lengths / etc.) - which as we know, change over time historically...

so if you feel that your gender is more woman than man - you are simply saying that you are a man who associates more with how society sees a woman... i.e. a GRC simply says that you are a more 'feminine' man - as it can no longer define you as having changed sex, there is no alternative...

and perhaps therefore we can get back to having a grown up discussion about stereotypes / about why body dysmorphia occurs / about what causes dissatisfaction / what causes attraction to the opposite / about how society pushes people into difficult places / about mental health - about all the reasons which drive these decisions...

now we have ruled out transgender being anything to do with biological sex, and only to do with gender - it opens up lots of opportunities to look at how we can help young people in particular without taking them down a route of mutilation and life-changing surgery...

I think trans people need to get used to the idea that sometimes things will make them sad, but it is a them problem, not an everyone else problem.

Women aren't responsible for protecting trans people from feeling sad. We have enough on our plates.

You made me think of Diana Ross! Let's hope the judgement is a 'chain reaction' to reversing all the bullshit.

This would work in the favour of transwomen, if actual parity is what they want.

A transwomen being overlooked for promotions or experiencing other discrimination at work etc will have a much stronger case comparing themselves to similar men.

Unless this isn’t about discrimination but is about access, in which case they are fucked.

So is the NHS going to rewrite all their material where they say 'people with cervixes'?

And the revised NICE menopause guidance which says 'People who have hot flushes'?

I want to see this nonsense changed.

And that is the sound of the proposed conversion therapy bill supporting 'transing away the gay' going very firmly in the bin...

Oh I see, sorry! That makes more sense. Am skimming everything in a state of excitement... 😂

It’s the main story on G.B News at the moment, it’s live and they have reporter there - Graham Lineham is there!
They are all so happy, it’s amazing

And their reporting is all about trans rights

But frankly I do not care

They lost

They know it

or insisting that society upends itself to accommodate that belief.

What does this mean for police recording? Are they legally obliged to accurately record sex now rather than feeling?

Hear hear!

same.

I doubt it but I think there will be a slow retreat

This is such brilliant news. Well done to so many people.

All in all a good day for women. Well done FWS.

Mumsnet (browser) hasn’t been working properly for months so I’ve specifically downloaded the app to say well done FWS!

(and to remember dear Magdalen, who no doubt inspired many of the women who worked for this result. Just wish she was here to see it)

I'm a bit confused about this bit:

"As I will explain later in this handout speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in their acquired gender.”

I understand about protection through the characteristic of gender reassignment, but I don't understand the rest of the sentence. How are they protected "in their acquired gender"?

I could obv just wait for the promised handout, but wondered if anyone else understands it and I'm just being obtuse?

Oh my god this is incredible

I hadn't realised how worried I was until I let out a huge sigh of relief. I was really concerned that we would be told that woman was an umbrella term, covering anyone who felt like being one.

I was very much heartened by the clear statements. Trans people have protection under gender reassignment characteristics. But woman = biological woman, who are protected under sex based characteristics. Anything else would be incoherent under law.

I've got that right, haven't I? I worry about having spent so long caveating everything that I'm over excited about no longer being a hate crime merchant purely for knowing that biological women are a discrete grouping, not an umbrella group.

Brilliant, thanks to all who fought this all the way to the top. At my age cartwheels should not be attempted but I 'identify' as a women who's doing cartwheels all over the place right now. 😁🎉🦖

I went away to do busy things and came back to find pages of whoops of joy!
Thank you for bringing the decision here, and thank you to all the wonderful brave women who have made this day possible💜
And praise where praise is due to your system of justice - Flawed with a capital F, but capable of applying fairness and logic to cases like this, the Forstater case, etc. That's more than can be said in a lot of jurisdictions around the world where women are still written out of the law.

Well done FWS!

Of course it's about access.

It's always been about affirmation and there is no greater affirmation than forcing non consenting women to put up with your presence.

A toilet isn't the ladies toilet unless there's women in it. The crucial thing is the use of the women in it, not being able to pee.

You can pee in the mens, without discrimination. Cos biological sex.

Stonewall must be a joyful place today.

I’m not listening (waiting for legal bods like Michael Foran to explain), but is the ruling watertight enough to prevent the govt(s) from simply changing the law?

Just a not very well educated woman, a lurker but avid reader of the feminist board here, who doesn't know how to put into words everything that has been going on but I want to thank you all for what you have done for women like me..
Incredulous that it came to this!