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.

Well yes, there will also be some who try to claim this as some kind of twisted victory, such is their allergic reaction to admitting defeat in any possible way.

The whole thing was awful. The woman he had on to support the ruling just waffled on about nothing - at one point she seemed to be supporting the other side - and the trans man made some silly, irrelevant points which weren't challenged. It could have been so much better. They should have lined up much more informed contributors - it felt to me like they scrambled about to find anyone at the last minute.

There's some men who hate women so thoroughly, even if they don a frock.

Is Jane Fae the individual who put together advice for men who wanted to hide online searching and viewing of extreme violent porn involving performed rape, mutilation and murder?

Yes, from being forgotten, overlooked and ignored, transmen have suddenly become of paramount importance today. It reminds me of that scene at the end of Titanic when the evil fiancé seizes an unknown child as a ticket onto a lifeboat.

'Jane Fae' - "we will survive".

'Heather' Herbert - "it won't make much difference".

Surely, the law is crystal clear? You can't discriminate against someone because they have a trans identity, but that doesn't mean you can give them free access to single-sex spaces when they don't belong to said sex. Just what are they "confused" about?

Yes love it.

Yes. Yes it is.

Edited to include the word performed

Women's rights have historically been gained by arguing for justice, not by racist actions. Are you arguing to stop women from Afghanistan or Iran, for example, seeking asylum here?

Thanks for confirming @CriticalCondition I thought I recognized the name.

The BBC really do have some sketchy contacts on speed dial for this topic don’t they.

This as granny I can't Go into the mens swimming area changing rooms. So we go into the women's in a private cubicle where I can make sure the boys are dry dressed shoes on without offending anyone. It's difficult when you have an 8 year old and a 6 year old. Luckily our swimming baths are practical and sane.

But now, following SC ruling, they can't allow adult men into female spaces, so they'll need to change their policy

Please tell me that women will no longer be obliged to refer to their rapists as ‘she’.

One way to disentangle it - the Asimov reference is very apt - would be to think not in terms of a person's identity, but rather in terms of what kind of puberty a person has undergone. This way, it is easy to keep born men out of vulnerable spaces without wading into theological discussions about language and law.

It works like this: if trans-women are women, they are still women who have been through male puberty. As such, the rules that apply to men regarding access to vulnerable spaces should apply on grounds of anatomical power alone - not identity. Case in point: nobody objects to little boys being in women's changing rooms, DV shelters, etc. Maleness is not the issue. Muscles and man-bits are the issue. Whether or not you think you're a woman.

I think that's outside the scope of the Equality Act, but I do believe the Equal Treatment Bench Book (handbook for judges) has changed some time ago and now makes it clear that witnesses must be allowed to speak freely and give the evidence of their eyes and ears.

I am arguing to stop migrants from countries with disproportionately levels of sexual violence against women coming from here. I do not see why it is racist to want to protect women from sexual violence.

The statistics are below. Personally I put the rights of British women to be safe above those of migrants from these countries, why it is racist to protect women from sexual assault in your mind is beyond me.

Brilliant

You're derailing this thread.

Hurrah! Finally a bit of common sense

There was legal advice last week from the Judicial Office advising judges to stop using the accused's preferred pronouns in such cases as it was prejudicial, and, oh, yeah, unfair on the victim.

edited for sp

What do we think TRAs like Heather Herbert mean when they say the clarification of the law will make very little difference to their day to day lives?

Are they banking on most employers/institutions making services/ facilities unisex or do they mean they're just going to ignore any enforcement of single sex spaces regardless?

All the women who could have made an informed contribution were busy, they all had a prior engagement at the Supreme Court. 😁

Fantastic news!