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's Schroeder's Law

When can you legally be bothered female and a man? If your father has a title and you are female.

This means that sex ALWAYS remains visible and that gender can not replace sex. Other it would be impossible to make this distinction.

It's a tiny part of the act, but it's also the part that means gender reassignment is not a replacement for sex. It can only be in addition to sex.

Of course there are other practical implications if you replace sex with gender reassignment - which negatively impact multiple groups - INCLUDING trans people.

If legally a trans woman is a female then legally a doctor has to treat you in line with that. Otherwise they put themselves at risk. But if they treat them in line with being female then this could be negligence because you know you are not giving adequate and equal quality of treatment. Thus you could be legally liable.

It's incoherence in putting people into impossible situations is why I firmly believe we will at worst get caveats.

As soon as you allow men into changing rooms, showers etc where women undress then the crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure are potentially decriminalised (google the Wi Spa incident for an example).

First news item on Radio 3's news bulletin today.

Wow! You’re not bothered by something that affects all women? WTF! 😧

Well, that's obvious surely? Most people are mostly concerned with what's going on in their own lives. Will they conceive this year/what's for dinner/will granny leave me her house in her will? We tend to have a smaller bit of brain space for larger issues and everyone has their own particular bugbear(s). Some people really really care about world poverty/slave labour making cheap clothing/local politics... or yes, women's rights.

It's obvious that there'll be a much higher concentration of people who are actively interested in women's rights on a women's website with a prominent women's rights forum. Where else would you find them!

Almost everyone WOULD care about this issue if they happened to run across a problem with it in their real life (think creepy bloke pretending to be a woman for the purpose of accessing the girls' changing room which happens to contain your niece). But it hasn't yet forcibly invaded most people's reality. Luckily some people are prepared to care enough to stop it before it does.

Its on YouTube @PaleBlueMoonlight I've just found the Supreme Court page and there's a live section https://www.youtube.com/@UKSupremeCourt/streams but I'm not certain I'm in the right place so if I'm not can someone let me know please? (I usually read along on TT several days afterwards so am very excited I'm here now live)

Same here. I just want to know the result, not go through the whole nail-biting build-up😬
I'll just hold on here for the news..

Why do I keep thinking of those daft 'gender reveal parties'....??🙄

When can you legally be bothered female and a man? If your father has a title and you are female.
This means that sex ALWAYS remains visible and that gender can not replace sex. Other it would be impossible to make this distinction.

Oh I would LOVE it if this clause was the downfall of this sexist shit. Put in because a) they knew the whole law was nonsense and b) wanted to make sure no woman used it to game the system.

waiting nervously.

It's a dinosaur earing kind of day.

I just love how the guardian have tagged the story under 'Transgender' and not 'women' or 'feminism' because 0.01% of the population matters more than 52% 🤯

I was sexually assaulted by a "chick with a dick" in a woman only space.

I don't want other women and children to go through what I did.

I think the reason many aren’t bothered is because they don’t know this is happening. It’s so absurd. When I mention this to people their response is always one of shock.

Following.

It was on every news broadcast this morning on the Today programme so you'd have had a blast today Vivienne and it will affect the lives of many millions of women so yes, we are invested (and if most people knew what was at stake, they would be too)

Place marking and nail biting

Thanks, I'm unfortunately very familiar with the WI Spa debacle and the dozens of other examples discussed here over the years. But yeah makes sense that if someone can get their girld*ck out in a women's changing room, how can you charge them with indecent exposure.

Says it all about the guardian doesn’t it.

I haven’t followed this, but here for the decision.

Here we go

You can't.

It's next to impossible to prove the intent of being there is to gawk at women.

This leaves women with no protection in law against it.

This arguably is against their human rights to dignity and privacy.

Again the law falls down.

They're in, they're in, they're in <bites nails>

Nothing to see here, you TERFs. No one cares about your causes, you’re just shrill obsessive harridans.

They can claim both, because disadvantaged under both headings. But when a man with a GRC is excluded from a women's space, the only difference between him and them in law is the gender reassignment.

It's the top story on the Guardian and BBC website, and near the top on the Times.

Maybe they're not covering it on This Morning, though.

Is this being streamed somewhere?