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.

I don't think you can appeal the Supreme Court. I think the only next step would be to go to the ECHR.

It never is for a long time after its finished

I'm not sure.

The fact it was a unanimous decision perhaps makes it less likely. That suggests they are up against it and are going to have to come up with good grounds to.

completely agree - happy to clarify my response as - where there is a choice 😁

so if no choice - then single-sex spaces must be created and upheld on biological sex

if a choice - once made, it must then be upheld on biological grounds / not on whatever someone wishes to claim they are on the day

They don't have any legislation that supports an appeal; even The Gender Recognition Act doesn't claim you change sex or acquire all of the rights of the opposite sex if you get a GRC. And they don't have enough public support.

My understanding of this ruling is:
If a place wants to offer "women"s spaces it can. Including trans women.
If a place wants to offer female spaces it can. Excluding trans women as long as it's necessary and proportional - the exemption offered in the Equality Act.

But this ruling mightly strengthens the female space against discrimination claims providing they can make a case for necessary and proportional.

@Beowulfa Can you add Tom Daley to your invite list please? He of the "trans women have the right to compete in women's sports cause that's where they feel most comfortable".

Loving the sunshine in Scotland. This might play into Allison Bailey's appeal. It makes it clear that Stonewall law was not the law.

If they go to the ECHR it's lose lose.

If they win, then there's Reform ready to take us out the ECHR...

Some Labour MPs will have a fit though. I have in front of me a letter from my Labour MP saying the gov will not intervene to require SS sex spaces to mean female only, as these things can be based on 'common sense.'
(After I wrote to him about the fact the council require all 'women's spaces' including for vulnerable or undressed women, to include trans identified men).

Blimey, talk about the devil and the deep blue sea.

If a place wants to offer "women"s spaces it can. Including trans women

No, I don't think that's correct, as the judgement clearly states that woman = bio female

If they want to set up a group for "women and transwomen" they could do that

Good point. Is it worth whole losing the protection of the EHRC over a few men who want be be women? If they do this, I can think of nothing more effective in turning people against the transgender community. I hope they show more insight on this than they have to date

And keir Starmer will be a bit upset- he says women can have penises. And David Lammy says men can 'grow ' a cervix...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Wales, our gov is firmly TWAW and rewrote all policies accordingly….

Also thinking of Magdalene today.

If I was NHS Fife I'd be hunting in the cupboard for a very long ladder to climb down.

And should put a stop to company policies that state “use the facilities that best match your gender” kind of thing

Now that would be fascinating litigation.

But I think it would be incredibly dangerous from a human rights perspective.

First of all, the ECHR can express an opinion that UK legislation isn't compatible with the UK's obligations under the ECHR. It can't actually require the UK to do anything about it. It has soft political power, not hard legal power. Admittedly such an opinion would be persuasive, but ultimately the UK could ignore it and nothing could really be done.

But the reason it would be fascinating is that making any kind of declaration about trans rights (for example, that member countries are required to have a mechanism for people to change their legal gender) requires the ECHR to read between the lines to an incredible extent and find meaning in the treaty that simply wasn't there (because it dates from the 1950s and I think you would be hard pressed to argue that any of the people who drafted it or governments that ratified it believed that humans can change sex).

In my opinion it would be politically unwise for the ECHR to put itself in direct conflict with the UK legal system by taking a position that the UK not respecting its treaty obligations, when there is in fact no obligation in the ECHR to allow people to change their legal sex and never was. Even taking the position that member countries must have a mechanism for allowing people to change their legal sex was a massive, massive overreach.

In my view, if they were to say that it is not enough for the UK to have a mechanism allowing people to change their legal sex, but that someone's legal sex must take priority over their biological sex in all circumstances, no matter how detrimental to other groups (who DO actually have specific protection in the ECHR) would be a bridge too far and could cause the whole edifice to come toppling down. Because as soon as a country like the UK says to the ECHR, "no, fuck off back in your box", other countries might be minded to do the same. And it would certainly make repealing the GRA and its equivalent legislation in other countries much more likely.

wonder if these MPs will apologise to women?

( included a photo above but doesn't appear yet)

That's just a a slur thrown around to frighten people away from defending women's rights. Like a squirrel - oooh - look over here. Transactivists even rock up on Mumsnet with their hyperbolic accusations - anything to deter women from getting the rights the Supreme Court have now clarified belong to women - our biological sex rights.

How embarrassing we have to come to that - to involve the Supreme Court to state the bleeding obvious. The state of our society today! What is next up for deliberation - 'air is needed to breathe'? How sad. Helpless, toothless society.

Listening to times radio. There is a guy from a GI group very patiently explaining that sex and gender are different and that gender identity is protected in the EA. As TERFs might have said. I am enjoying this.