Page 28 | Supreme court ruling

mids2019 · 2025-04-16T04:49:39+00:00

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

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 15:09

Rightsraptor · 16/04/2025 13:42

'Jane Fae' - "we will survive".

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

Operation Let Them Speak is proving very successful today. Never any doubt just from the voice which sex the speaker is. It's even clearer when you see them on video too.

Dozer · 16/04/2025 15:10

confusing statement from the UK government on BBC website in response to the ruling: the statement doesn’t align with my understanding of Labour policy.

‘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.

"This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
"Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government."

LittleBigHead · 16/04/2025 15:10

Has #LittleOwenJones imploded yet?

Delphinium20 · 16/04/2025 15:10

Congratulations, women of the UK!!!! A long fight, but in the end, sanity reigns!

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 15:10

akkakk · 16/04/2025 15:07

Now is also the time to address pronouns...

Part of the argument has been that everyone must use the adopted pronouns (out of respect / not being transphobic) - but in reality because by forcing acceptance of one area, other areas become easier...

However - a pronoun goes with the correct word - so She for woman / He for man etc. and as the Supreme Court ruling has confirmed that these are based on biological sex - so should pronouns be - to call a trans-woman 'she' is to imply or state that person as a woman - but unless their biological sex is a woman, that is not accurate...

So, let's start to see the correct pronouns being used - out of respect to those people - if the Supreme Court says that a trans-woman is legally a man because they are biologically a man, then it would be offensive for anyone to go against the law as confirmed and call them 'she' because that would be to see them as a woman which they are not - and could be seen as discriminatory because you are treating them differently to all other biological males...

the ruling confirmed that we must not discriminate - we must treat all men the same and all women the same - so let's make sure that we do so by using the correct pronouns...

It will also peel back more of the wrapper of obscurity which has been so carefully constructed over all this discussion - if there is a newspaper article discussing a man convicted for rape, then to refer to them as 'she' is not only inaccurate as now confirmed, but obscures our understanding of what has actually happened - by returning to the accurate use of the English language, we provide transparency, clarity and parity for all

Agree. Let's hear no more of 'her penis', please.

EuclidianGeometryFan · 16/04/2025 15:11

PowerTulle · 16/04/2025 14:44

When the pity party has been cleared away and the hangovers subsided, perhaps the attendees should seize the moment to campaign for inclusive male spaces.

Perhaps a clear message from the wokebro’s that all types of men are welcome in the men’s room! A celebration of diversity and acceptance, and confirmation that TW will be protected and held in safety within male spaces. Both in law and by the progressive moral standards we all expect from these enlightened individuals.

That would be quite something!
I am not holding my breath.

MoetUndChandon · 16/04/2025 15:11

"We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'

WTF?!

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 15:12

MoetUndChandon · 16/04/2025 15:11

"We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'

WTF?!

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Rosie Duffield? Who's that?

murasaki · 16/04/2025 15:13

It does, in theory, put the onus back on men to stop being horrible to men who present differently from the standard.

Not sure it'll happen, but should never have been women's problem.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 16/04/2025 15:15

Dozer · 16/04/2025 15:10

confusing statement from the UK government on BBC website in response to the ruling: the statement doesn’t align with my understanding of Labour policy.

‘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.

"This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
"Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government."

The audacity is stunning.

EasternStandard · 16/04/2025 15:15

murasaki · 16/04/2025 15:13

It does, in theory, put the onus back on men to stop being horrible to men who present differently from the standard.

Not sure it'll happen, but should never have been women's problem.

Agree. We need to keep changing the law until this is the case.

It’s for men to resolve, not women.

coldandfrostymorning23 · 16/04/2025 15:16

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 16/04/2025 14:44

I wonder if the tribunal in Sandie Peggy's case is taking notice of all the 'public interest' in this court case, it might help inform their decision on whether or not to exclude the public from their case when it resumes in July, if it resumes in July.

They should have a look at another of today’s Supreme Court rulings: In a case relating to a refusal to name doctors involved in controversial end of life decisions, Lord Reed said that the NHS trusts involved had failed to establish convincingly that keeping the doctors’ identities secret was necessary.

Much more difficult in my view to establish convincingly that keeping the public out of the Fife case is justified.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/04/2025 15:17

A lovely twitter post from Graham Linehan remembering the wonderful Magdalen Berns:

x.com/Glinner/status/1912459908726858085

IHeartHalloumi · 16/04/2025 15:19

Apologies if this has been discussed - will the DVLA & other government authorities have to stop lying about sex on official documents now? I'm thinking of driver's licence and the police

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 15:21

EasternStandard · 16/04/2025 15:15

Agree. We need to keep changing the law until this is the case.

It’s for men to resolve, not women.

Show quote history

It is. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the #BeKind types like James O'Brien are so totally unable to imagine why another man would want to dress and present in a stereotypically female way that they react with ostentatious pity and compassion for this poor chap's now degraded condition. Obviously the other weak and pitiful specimens, viz, natal females, must budge up and look after them because that is their function in life - looking after others, especially males. Misogyny so deeply ingrained they can't see it.

MarieDeGournay · 16/04/2025 15:23

Dozer · 16/04/2025 15:10

confusing statement from the UK government on BBC website in response to the ruling: the statement doesn’t align with my understanding of Labour policy.

‘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.

"This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
"Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government."

The past tense of 'Let me be absolutely clear about this..' is 'We have always been absolutely clear about this..'🙄

mrshoho · 16/04/2025 15:24

MoetUndChandon · 16/04/2025 15:11

"We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'

WTF?!

What short memories these politicians seem to have. At least this now clears up their confusing answers and explanations of "what is a woman?' What a fine day 16th April 2025 is. Well done FWS and each and every one of us who spoke up and campaigned to stop this charade. I will most certainly be raising a glass.

FairCat · 16/04/2025 15:25

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 14:54

What the piece on the World at One (and all the other news reports) could have done with was a very clear upfront reminder of why we need women-only spaces in the first place - male violence and sexual predation. Transwomen continue to have a male pattern of offending. Not all males will be violent and predatory, but we can't know who is and who isn't, so until very recently everybody knew and accepted (except the criminals) that there were certain places that males over the age of about 8 kept out of, so that women and girls could have safety and privacy when in a vulnerable state.

Transmen who 'pass' will probably continue using the male toilets and changing rooms. They present no physical threat to men and if they are discreet they may feel they are safe. I hope they are. What I would really like would be for young women and girls to stop feeling that the self-harm from wearing breast binders and taking testosterone is preferable to trying to navigate life as a female. That's the next battle.

Show quote history

The EA 2010 doesn't make that distinction, the effect of the ruling is that trans men will be restricted to spaces consistent with their biological sex.
There's a lot to unpack from this judgement, I can see why some are celebrating but all that has changed is a narrow section of equality law has been clarified, while the judgement explicitly states that protection of trans people under the EA 2010 is unaffected.
In practice, organisations will have to revise policy to balance everyone's rights with regard to this. It's anyone's guess how that will work out.

Shortshriftandlethal · 16/04/2025 15:25

akkakk · 16/04/2025 15:07

Now is also the time to address pronouns...

Part of the argument has been that everyone must use the adopted pronouns (out of respect / not being transphobic) - but in reality because by forcing acceptance of one area, other areas become easier...

However - a pronoun goes with the correct word - so She for woman / He for man etc. and as the Supreme Court ruling has confirmed that these are based on biological sex - so should pronouns be - to call a trans-woman 'she' is to imply or state that person as a woman - but unless their biological sex is a woman, that is not accurate...

So, let's start to see the correct pronouns being used - out of respect to those people - if the Supreme Court says that a trans-woman is legally a man because they are biologically a man, then it would be offensive for anyone to go against the law as confirmed and call them 'she' because that would be to see them as a woman which they are not - and could be seen as discriminatory because you are treating them differently to all other biological males...

the ruling confirmed that we must not discriminate - we must treat all men the same and all women the same - so let's make sure that we do so by using the correct pronouns...

It will also peel back more of the wrapper of obscurity which has been so carefully constructed over all this discussion - if there is a newspaper article discussing a man convicted for rape, then to refer to them as 'she' is not only inaccurate as now confirmed, but obscures our understanding of what has actually happened - by returning to the accurate use of the English language, we provide transparency, clarity and parity for all

Pronouns and their use should be a private matter negotiated between an individual and their family and friends etc.....but the police and the press, as just two examples, should not be referring to a male who has committed a criminal act as 'she'. Nor the should the general public be expected to conform to a private desire.

earlyr1ser · 16/04/2025 15:26

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/04/2025 15:21

It is. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the #BeKind types like James O'Brien are so totally unable to imagine why another man would want to dress and present in a stereotypically female way that they react with ostentatious pity and compassion for this poor chap's now degraded condition. Obviously the other weak and pitiful specimens, viz, natal females, must budge up and look after them because that is their function in life - looking after others, especially males. Misogyny so deeply ingrained they can't see it.

Show quote history

Men are suckers for anyone who can perform a pretty-and-vulnerable routine, transwomen included. It plays to their sense of sexual entitlement. Try being vulnerable with a pushchair, or if you're elderly, or disabled, and most men couldn't give a tinker's toss. The femininity game is all about making them look powerful.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 16/04/2025 15:27

FairCat · 16/04/2025 15:25

The EA 2010 doesn't make that distinction, the effect of the ruling is that trans men will be restricted to spaces consistent with their biological sex.
There's a lot to unpack from this judgement, I can see why some are celebrating but all that has changed is a narrow section of equality law has been clarified, while the judgement explicitly states that protection of trans people under the EA 2010 is unaffected.
In practice, organisations will have to revise policy to balance everyone's rights with regard to this. It's anyone's guess how that will work out.

Edited

Show quote history

Perhaps the way some organisations will go is to have women only and mixed spaces.

This would mean all trans women and trans men in the mixed space with the men.

Not sure how that would go down with men in practice.

In reality I think people who pass convincingly will continue to use the spaces of the opposite sex. But almost nobody does pass.

Shortshriftandlethal · 16/04/2025 15:29

What is it going to take to ensure that the judiciary, the media and the police also conform with the legal ruling.......by ceasing with the practice of referring to men as women?

LadyBracknellsHandbagg · 16/04/2025 15:29

BiologicalRobot · 16/04/2025 10:14

A big heartfelt THANK YOU to FWS! ❤

This, absolutely this! 🎉💐

EasternStandard · 16/04/2025 15:29

MoetUndChandon · 16/04/2025 15:11

"We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'

WTF?!

This lying is infuriating.

akkakk · 16/04/2025 15:29

murasaki · 16/04/2025 15:13

It does, in theory, put the onus back on men to stop being horrible to men who present differently from the standard.

Not sure it'll happen, but should never have been women's problem.

I suspect there are al sorts of scenarios that have taken place over time - but as a male I haven't seen any issues with accepting men of 'all persuasions' into male spaces - plenty of male sporting teams regularly dress up in dresses, men wear kilts in Scotland, if a bloke wants to wear a bra into a male changing room then that is up to him - he will probably have the proverbial taken, just as much as if he rocked up wearing cartoon underwear but there wouldn't be an issue with his being there...

I am sure there have been issues with trans-women in male spaces - just as historically there have been issues for some who are gay, but I don't think that reflects the whole of male society which in general isn't all that bothered (much like most women are not bothered by having trans-men in their spaces - all are women).

I am sure that the vocal level of concern in this area is partially driven by the need for it to be seen as an issue to have the excuse for trans-women to be in women's spaces (the nasty men were mean to us...) but I suspect that like much of the rest of that specific agenda there is probably a large amount of fabrication surrounding occasional truths.