Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
Scout2016 · 16/04/2025 09:00

Morning all. Been sent this by someone from Scottish Feminist Network who was at the hearings. Sorry if it's already shared I'm not fully awake yet! Fingers crossed for today.

Supreme court ruling
NoWordForFluffy · 16/04/2025 09:00

PaleBlueMoonlight · 16/04/2025 08:56

I remain unsure where I can watch it. Is it streamed on the supreme court website or YouTube or somewhere else? Thank you to anyone who knows.

It says you can watch on the UKSC website, so a link will probably appear on here soon: supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

RedToothBrush · 16/04/2025 09:08

PottedPerennial · 16/04/2025 07:29

I think (very very uninformed opinion, though) that it's going to go with the Scottish government and say "all legal purposes" includes the Equality Act, because, well, that is a legal purpose... Hopefully it will follow this by pointing out it's an absolute mess, legislatively (and indeed all other ways) and needs to be sorted out. But they don't rule on what the law should be, only what it says.

For all legal purposes is at complete odds with the explicitly written exceptions within the act.

My feeling is that the worst case ruling has to reflect this.

The act also miraculously can identify females when it comes to titles too.

This means that sex and gender reassignment MUST be two different things and gender reassignment CAN NOT replace sex.

If the judge sees this, surely there has to be at least an acknowledgement the law is blatantly incoherent , and falls apart and they have no alternative but to rule that and throw it back to Westminster. That's before you consider the effect of that law on homosexuals and voyeurism laws amongst others.

In that scenario it's then completely out of the hands of the SNP, and Labour have the prospect of dealing with this issue at a time when the polls are screaming that Nigel Farage is likely to break the red wall at the next election. Given the political tides and how this issue featured state side, this would be the hill Labour died on if they decide to screw over women. That's generally not how politicians work when it comes down to it - the desire to stay in power and keep their jobs tends to be motivating.

We shall see, but I don't expect a ruling in favour of the Scottish government without a massive caveat about how the law was fucked up and incoherent. And I honestly believe that's all we need at this point.

And that's where I think the worse case scenario lies.

(I could be wrong but I don't see how).

myplace · 16/04/2025 09:11

Hanging here to get the downlow as it happens. Thanks all!

RoastOrMash · 16/04/2025 09:12

NoWordForFluffy · 16/04/2025 09:00

It says you can watch on the UKSC website, so a link will probably appear on here soon: supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

@PaleBlueMoonlight I am also keeping an eye on Supreme Court Youtube channel, in case it appears there:
UKSupremeCourt - YouTube

Before you continue to YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/@UKSupremeCourt/streams

Hoardasurass · 16/04/2025 09:13

mids2019 · 16/04/2025 05:49

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.

Has anyone got a archive link to the article that doesn't require me to allow the guardian to put cookies on my devices or pay for a subscription

Superhansrantowindsor · 16/04/2025 09:14

Not a single person on this planet thirty years ago would think we would be having a legal ruling to try and determine what a woman is. What a strange and twisted world we live in.

zanahoria · 16/04/2025 09:14

RedToothBrush · 16/04/2025 09:08

For all legal purposes is at complete odds with the explicitly written exceptions within the act.

My feeling is that the worst case ruling has to reflect this.

The act also miraculously can identify females when it comes to titles too.

This means that sex and gender reassignment MUST be two different things and gender reassignment CAN NOT replace sex.

If the judge sees this, surely there has to be at least an acknowledgement the law is blatantly incoherent , and falls apart and they have no alternative but to rule that and throw it back to Westminster. That's before you consider the effect of that law on homosexuals and voyeurism laws amongst others.

In that scenario it's then completely out of the hands of the SNP, and Labour have the prospect of dealing with this issue at a time when the polls are screaming that Nigel Farage is likely to break the red wall at the next election. Given the political tides and how this issue featured state side, this would be the hill Labour died on if they decide to screw over women. That's generally not how politicians work when it comes down to it - the desire to stay in power and keep their jobs tends to be motivating.

We shall see, but I don't expect a ruling in favour of the Scottish government without a massive caveat about how the law was fucked up and incoherent. And I honestly believe that's all we need at this point.

And that's where I think the worse case scenario lies.

(I could be wrong but I don't see how).

It would be helpful if it were kicked back to the UK Parliament to decide.

But they may find some way of avoiding it

Foxgloverr · 16/04/2025 09:15

Nervously placemarking and wondering what rubbish the TRAs will come out with to misrepresent whatever the result is.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 16/04/2025 09:16

So anxious about this.

ItsCoolForCats · 16/04/2025 09:18

Placemarking. Feeling very nervous 😐

CanOfMangoTango · 16/04/2025 09:18

There's a live BBC news link

BBC News - www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
Supreme Court to rule on definition of a woman - live updates - BBC News

Myalternate · 16/04/2025 09:24

Hoardasurass · 16/04/2025 09:13

Has anyone got a archive link to the article that doesn't require me to allow the guardian to put cookies on my devices or pay for a subscription

https://archive.ph/dt2Sw

hope that works. 🤞

CarefulN0w · 16/04/2025 09:25

RedToothBrush · 16/04/2025 09:08

For all legal purposes is at complete odds with the explicitly written exceptions within the act.

My feeling is that the worst case ruling has to reflect this.

The act also miraculously can identify females when it comes to titles too.

This means that sex and gender reassignment MUST be two different things and gender reassignment CAN NOT replace sex.

If the judge sees this, surely there has to be at least an acknowledgement the law is blatantly incoherent , and falls apart and they have no alternative but to rule that and throw it back to Westminster. That's before you consider the effect of that law on homosexuals and voyeurism laws amongst others.

In that scenario it's then completely out of the hands of the SNP, and Labour have the prospect of dealing with this issue at a time when the polls are screaming that Nigel Farage is likely to break the red wall at the next election. Given the political tides and how this issue featured state side, this would be the hill Labour died on if they decide to screw over women. That's generally not how politicians work when it comes down to it - the desire to stay in power and keep their jobs tends to be motivating.

We shall see, but I don't expect a ruling in favour of the Scottish government without a massive caveat about how the law was fucked up and incoherent. And I honestly believe that's all we need at this point.

And that's where I think the worse case scenario lies.

(I could be wrong but I don't see how).

I’m crossing my fingers for your version of events Red, though am fully expecting the opposite.

Re your point about Labour and the hill. We know what happened to NS when she led her troops up this particular mountain. I have a feeling that KS doesn’t want this to be his Humpty Dumpty moment. That can’t be put back together.

Hoardasurass · 16/04/2025 09:27

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 16/04/2025 08:18

Guardian coverage not irredeemably dreadful shocker!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/16/how-uk-court-definition-of-woman-could-affect-sex-based-rights

They said trans rights and women's rights are in conflict (wash out your mouths with soap, transphobes):

The issue has challenged politicians and policymakers in recent years as concerns about the clash between women’s rights and trans rights have grown...

They made one out and out error that I can see:

But FWS is concerned that, if it loses, using those exemptions would be made more complicated for women-only groups because a trans woman, deemed legally a woman, would therefore able to claim sex discrimination.

I think that should say gender reassignment discrimination. A minor point, though.

Nope they could claim sex discrimination because they would be treated differently than someone of their acquired sex

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 16/04/2025 09:30

I assume that the parties will have had a preview, so we can expect the press releases to start as soon as their lordships have stopped speaking?

Viviennemary · 16/04/2025 09:30

I don't know why folk on MN are so invested in this. Nobody I know in real life is bothered. I haven't even heard about this court case and I watch the news at least twice a day.

Kucinghitam · 16/04/2025 09:32

Viviennemary · 16/04/2025 09:30

I don't know why folk on MN are so invested in this. Nobody I know in real life is bothered. I haven't even heard about this court case and I watch the news at least twice a day.

And yet you cared enough to log in and tell us all about how little you care Confused

sandgrown · 16/04/2025 09:34

Am I missing something. I thought your biological sex was in every cell of your body and could never be changed ? I just thought you could present yourself as whatever gender you wanted

JoyousEagle · 16/04/2025 09:34

Viviennemary · 16/04/2025 09:30

I don't know why folk on MN are so invested in this. Nobody I know in real life is bothered. I haven't even heard about this court case and I watch the news at least twice a day.

It’s being reported on live at the top of the bbc news home screen (on my app, which I assume mirrors the main website).

Redshoeblueshoe · 16/04/2025 09:34

Viviennemary · 16/04/2025 09:30

I don't know why folk on MN are so invested in this. Nobody I know in real life is bothered. I haven't even heard about this court case and I watch the news at least twice a day.

Ha ha of course mate

OneGreyScroller · 16/04/2025 09:34

Viviennemary · 16/04/2025 09:30

I don't know why folk on MN are so invested in this. Nobody I know in real life is bothered. I haven't even heard about this court case and I watch the news at least twice a day.

Front page of the BBC app right now

Fenlandia · 16/04/2025 09:34

RedToothBrush · 16/04/2025 09:08

For all legal purposes is at complete odds with the explicitly written exceptions within the act.

My feeling is that the worst case ruling has to reflect this.

The act also miraculously can identify females when it comes to titles too.

This means that sex and gender reassignment MUST be two different things and gender reassignment CAN NOT replace sex.

If the judge sees this, surely there has to be at least an acknowledgement the law is blatantly incoherent , and falls apart and they have no alternative but to rule that and throw it back to Westminster. That's before you consider the effect of that law on homosexuals and voyeurism laws amongst others.

In that scenario it's then completely out of the hands of the SNP, and Labour have the prospect of dealing with this issue at a time when the polls are screaming that Nigel Farage is likely to break the red wall at the next election. Given the political tides and how this issue featured state side, this would be the hill Labour died on if they decide to screw over women. That's generally not how politicians work when it comes down to it - the desire to stay in power and keep their jobs tends to be motivating.

We shall see, but I don't expect a ruling in favour of the Scottish government without a massive caveat about how the law was fucked up and incoherent. And I honestly believe that's all we need at this point.

And that's where I think the worse case scenario lies.

(I could be wrong but I don't see how).

What's the issue around voyeurism laws?

Chariothorses · 16/04/2025 09:35

Thanks to the posters above who have posted the links to the judgement- that's what I came on to find! You are so helpful!

I am very worried about this judgement due to the lies and contempt for female privacy/ safety from men who say they are women, that have increased since the GRA was passed . Already many formerly 'female only' spaces / services are refusing to use the SS exemptions so many women can't access them.
https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

The fact so many people in power are prepared to lie has left me scared about this judgement, as it will have massive real world consequences. Grateful to FWS for getting these issues into the public domain.

Evidence of calls to remove single sex exemptions from Equality Act - Woman's Place UK

Violence against women and sex discrimination still exist. Women need reserved places, separate spaces and distinct services.

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.