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.

It hasn't occurred to you why this hasn't been in the news much? Despite the number of women losing their jobs, being sexually assaulted and raped in prison, being forced to share spaces in hospital wards, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges and rape crisis centres, nurses punished for not wanting to get undressed in front of men, women losing medals and scholarships to men, men punching women becoming an Olympic sport.
Can you think of a reason why the mainstream media would make huge efforts not to report these things for years until the efforts of women forced the issue into the public eye?
Women have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for all women. Even those who aren't that interested.

I've opened the emergency jelly meerkats in celebration (king of vegetarian jelly sweets; not always in the shops).

Having a lovely time imagining the following holding the world's shittest commiseration party:

NHS Fife
Stonewall
SNP
Lib Dems
Greens
Robin White
Helen Webberley
Owen Jones
Willoughby
Fox Botherer
Eddie Izzard
Various Mumsnet scolders

Have I forgotten to invite anyone?

Amazing news, so relieved up here in Scotland, FWS are absolute legends.
Not just SNP who had lost their minds over this issue, the Scottish Greens made it impossible to vote for them by prioritising gender nonsense over actual environmental issues.

They can't live as 'true authentic selves' due to this ruling apparently.

I'm so so pleased about this ruling.
Too many posts that I would like to quote and agree with.

Just delighted.

The 'woman' who played piano with her cock on TV?

I don't think that's what Skandar meant, though. I think there are two points (at least, two that I have grasped):

1. The meaning of sex in the EA is biological, therefore it's fine to say "women only" and exclude TW from that.

1. As with any protected characteristic in the EA, it has always been the case that people are protected even if they are incorrectly perceived to have the characteristic. For example, if someone wrongly infers that I am Jewish and proceeds to subject me to antisemitic discrimination, I can still claim discrimination on the basis of religion, even though I'm not actually Jewish. Likewise, if someone genuinely believes their colleague "Jill" to be a biological woman, and mistreats Jill on that basis, then they can be done for sex discrimination - even if Jill was born John and is simply a very convincing TW. Now, whether that's likely to happen is another matter!

Thanks @Brainwormand @zanahoria- that’s clarified some of it for me. I will watch with interest for any further reaching results.

I have nothing constructive to add to this discussion but I’ve now read the judgment and want to say only one thing: Woohoo!

This is fantastic news. Thank you to all those on these pages who have fought so long for women - it's been a long and bumpy campaign - so proud of you all!

From a long term lurker

@SusanSmithFWS

To all you wonderful women at For Women Scotland

Thank you

XX

'victory for the far right'.

Remember the ruling merely clarifies the EXISTING law, that was written under a previous government which was never and would never be considered 'far right'.

Who is the DEI 'expert' on Sjmky bleating about trans people in the workplace? Why do these handmaidens sell out their own sex? I will never, never understand it. Why isnt she happy that women are protected?

THIS!!

Ive always said in this debate that you dont achieve equality by trampling over the rights of others. I wish no harm to trans people, but this proves that you cannot change biological facts just because you fancy wearing nail varnish.

Such a momentous day and HUGE thankyou to the REAL women who put up this fight on our behalf!

According to Colin Winter KC, this interpretation is now the way that the EA2010 has always been interpreted so they will have to be made to rearrange it how it should have been.

https://x.com/QcWynter/status/1912440455318458598

Final point. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, its decision states what the law has always been, not what it should be from date of judgment onwards. This has implications for cases concluded, cases currently being fought, employers' trans access policies & lots more. Huge.

Thank goodness

How out of touch this person is.

Lurker here

Happy happy happy!!!!

Well done FWS x

As reported by the BBC:
"Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, a UK government spokesperson says: "We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex."

'Always' doing a lot of heavy lifting, methinks!

James O Brien perhaps!

I'm confused by this comment from the thread, how can this be interpreted as misogynistic/homophobic when it actually benefits women and lesbian groups!

This negative and incorrect perceived association with far right, extreme Christianity etc is so damaging, it has made me feel uncomfortable to share my opinion with anyone as I'll just be branded as far right (which I most definitely am not) for believing in biological sex.

Terf Island, yay. I wonder if they regret calling us TERF's, because it's really back fired on them.

I think we are probably coming at this from the same place...
basically I see it as a reminder that discriminating against anyone is not on...
i.e. you can't discriminate against a man who looks like a woman - as though they were a woman, and then claim that it was not discrimination because in reality they are male... the act of discriminating is still wrong (which seems to make sense)

Well quite Sharon...