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 will be hugely, hugely helped by women being able to reply to a lot of waffle about the law/Equality Act and how it works with a straight, loud 'No'.

Of course legally compelling men to be kind to other men who don’t conform to male stereotypes would benefit absolutely everyone. Putting vulnerable men and boys’ safety and dignity as priority in male spaces, whilst keeping women free to convene their own same sex spaces.

Correction. Actually it wouldn’t benefit everyone. Those seeking opportunities for validation, fetishization and exploitation would be served less well and would probably make an absolutely huge fuss.

you can't do that - men do not want trans-men in male spaces - it is as much a vulnerability for decent men who can have accusations against them when a women is in their space as it is for women to have trans-women (men) in their spaces...

there really isn't an issue - men (biological) in male spaces / women (biological) in women's spaces - if you want anything different you provide mixed facilities

They already are making a huge fuss! What we have to hope is that people stop paying attention to them now that the law is clearer.

What remains mysterious to me is why anybody paid any attention to them in the first place. People who tell outright lies or have obvious delusions on any other subject are usually given short shrift.

It would be nice if the print media, some more than others, had to go back through their archives and do a find and replace re the word woman in some articles.

Except I expect this tedious task would be delegated to a female intern.

So if trans women remain protected from discrimination under the equality act does that now mean that the responsibility for their inclusion in services and facilities is an issue for biological males to solve (because the protected characteristic being referenced is sex) or does it remain the responsibility of females (because the protected characteristic is still a GRC)?

I see it was mentioned many hundreds of posts upthread, but I've only just seen the Fox-botherer's response and I laughed for five minutes, so here it is for the delight of anyone else who's late to the party. (Will take a few seconds to get through the image checker.)

It's interesting how easy it is to say "men don't want that" when the fact that women don't want it has been completely ignored for years.

The thing is that there are some trans men who pass well enough to cause distress to women in women's spaces, and I don't think they should be in the women's. (Not talking about the ones like Elliot Page, who look obviously female despite all the surgery.)

Blessed day ladies.. yeah👍✨️🥂🎉🎉🎫

The ‘we have always supported same sex spaces’ line is unbelievable. Starmer has repeatedly and unswervingly referenced ‘safe spaces’ when pressed on this and has pointedly dodged the word sex every fucking time.

When have men ever resolved anything for us? In fact, they actively campaign against us on virtually everything. From the Suffragettes to gender identity misogyny, at every step men have either completely ignored the issue or actively supported the oppression. And now they’re having problems with nihilism and depression, they want women to be part of the solution. It’s a fucking joke

Let's keep it human.
If you are born a girl, you are a female.
If you are born a boy, you are a male.
If you want to change either of these stati through mutatation, up to you, but you cannot change how you were born and this should not be reflected on any official documents, unless the few want to change government administration.
I would also suggest at least 5 years of intensive counselling before any other hormone or surgical intervention.

I would think k it means they have to be treated equally to any other man which would make it a male problem to solve.

I wonder if this calls for a really radical rewrite of the statutory and non-statutory guidance around SSEs.

For the moment, we seem to have the ironic result, that those women-only entities that are permitted under sex-discrimination law, but not because of reasons of safety, fairness and privacy (public board quotas, shortlists, prizes, associations and clubs), can exclude TW just because they are men.

But those women-only entities that are permitted under sex-discrimination law because of reasons of safety, fairness and privacy (toilets and changing rooms, prisons, refuges, sports teams) can only justify the exclusion of TW by reference to a proportionate means to a legitimate end, which is more onerous.

The guidance has an adverse repercussive effect by implying that the default is trans-inclusion.

So the guidance on trans-inclusion should be rescinded in favour of a 'sex means sex' interpretation, particularly if the entity is governed by other legislation that mandates sex-segregation (eg regulations about prisons, school toilets, and workplace changing rooms).

Whilst entities that are permitted by the Act, but not mandated by other legislation, could be trans-inclusion optional.

Disclaimer: haven't read the judgment, and probably should before speculating further.

Have we got a special seat for David Lammy?

This. We need to see justice done to the bitter end and all the useful idiots of Fife hung out for the derision they deserve. I'm feeling very vengeful today!

This what 'Labour for Trans Rights' have to say:

Batshit.

..... but there IS no right for a man to access women in a women's space regardless of his identity or certificate. This is not a right.

His legal protections under the Equality Act are unchanged.

My understanding is that the sex markers on these documents are not legally proof of bio sex, and so probably not.

This is amazing! Well done & a huge congratulations to FWS ✊🍾I'm in Ireland so it'll be interesting to see if this ruling causes any ripples over here

Hahaha, his genuine surprise 🤣

Clearly he has had limited dealings with KCs which resulted in his limited understanding of what their job entails.

Law 101 and Joylon can have that one for free: unarguable cases are not granted leave to appeal.

But it was made clear in the ruling that the court has protected trans rights - you cannot be discriminated on the basis of gender reassignment.

What they're saying is just misleading and untrue.

He used to be a KC. Don't know if he still describes himself as such since he stopped practising. He was a tax barrister. On the day he left his chambers the Head of Chambers said something on Twitter that indicated JM had had a blazing row with him and blocked him on all channels. They must have been dancing in the corridors when he announced he was off.

What a glorious day for womanhood!!!! Be strengthened ladies, I think the world is finally waking up from this weird dream we’ve been in for the last few years!!