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 perfectly fine for those without and also with GRCs to use the gents, Robin.

Can it go to the ECHR? surely to appeal from the Supreme Court needs one of the parties who have had the judgement against them to take that appeal - wouldn't anyone else have to take it through national courts first - and the ECHR is only there if their rights are being restricted by the nation's courts... as the judgment has made very clear - no rights are being oppressed by this clarification - all people still have full rights against harassment / discrimination etc. - so it would be challenging to find a basis on which to take it to the ECHR

regarding the comments about transwomen being male - they always have been male in law - you can't change your sex, if born male, you will always be male - so this is simply a clarification that the law recognises this... and always has done

Ha ha ha! Not a single one of the obvious males I've heard talking about this has suggested this obvious solution. I wonder why.

Now it's Maggie Personperson's turn on R4. She's "concerned". 🙃

Cervix is the Latin word for neck. We all have necks. In that one sense only, IW has a cervix. IW does not have a womb, hence cannot have the cervix which is the neck of the womb, to state the bleeding obvious.

Maggie Chapman on PM:"this will stop trans women access services"(that they weren't entitled to)

We need to remember that this ludicrous position arose due to the underhand, stealthy behaviour of a cohort of interested parties - people with various agendas who have infiltrated political parties, unions, the civil service, the education system, the media etc. And how do you think they will react to this judgment? Even before the dust has settled, they will be working to keep their ideology on track, and I doubt that they will allow the Supreme Court to derail their goals. How will they circumvent this ruling? By using Parliament to pass amending law?

How many of us were caught napping or fell into line with the be kind mantra. This fight is far from over.

Agreed @KnottyAuty

@MissScarletInTheBallroom @akkakk point 221 of the Supreme Court judgement appears to say that transmen can be excluded from female only spaces if they have undertaken gender reassignment treatment that means women could 'object to their presence in a women only space'. (just tried to copy it here but can't get it to work). if you look at Maya Forstater's x she's recently posted the clip from the judgement.

Men rarely (never?) pass as a woman so assume the testosterone impact on both sexes is immense.

For women worried by male trans lobbyists angry they can't access female spaces so saying all toilets should be made mixed sex, previous tribunal rulings have said failure to provide SS toilets discriminates against women. I understand communal loos are cheaper/ safer for women/ take up less space and the Equality Act confirms women need SS spaces in situations involving privacy, dignity and safety or it is discriminatory. Maybe the Equality Act would have to be amended to require SS spaces not just allow them, if organisations are mad enough to continue submitting to the demands of TRAs.

The most likely outcome is that employers ensure male staff receive equality training to 'be kind!' to non conforming men in mens toilets and have an additional stand alone toilet/ changing room option for those who don't want/can't share with others of their sex

And now on PM, Harriet (PIE) Harmann

He did the Johnny depp/amber heard thing too I believe

WTF apart from Michael Foran, has anyone else been on the BBC today as a voice on the impact on women?!

@Branconche my colleague and I are not in the same physical space, and she’s an ally rather than a transgender person.

I have kept my powder dry until I can make a disingenuous… ‘but as I understand it, this will secure single sex provision in prisons and other places women really need them. Unfortunately some really unpleasant people have taken the opportunity to take advantage of the lack of clarity. This was a clarification of an existing law, not a removal of rights from anyone.’

Has this SM assessment on the judgement and what needs to happen next been posted already?
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/its-a-win/

... who has forgotten that in the child/parent relationship one person has the advantage of being older and having a mature human brain, hence has the authority to say 'No' - kindly, obviously, but if your child says 'I'm not a boy and I'm not a girl either, I'm non-binary!' your role as parent is to say 'Well, actually, no, you are a boy, but that doesn't mean you can't have long hair and like [insert stereotypically female things] ...' That's what a responsible parent would do, not just avoid a difficult conversation.

Oh well spotted!

@KnottyAuty I know several women being interviewed by regional BBC tomorrow.

I've seen many people on SM today (seemingly mostly young women) claiming that this ruling puts all women at risk, as now we will all have to show our genitals any time we want to use a toilet/yoga group. Apparently any woman with short hair might as well give up now - they'll never be accepted in women's spaces 🤷‍♀️

I honestly think that younger people see more people heavily filtered online than in real life? I agree that sex is not always 100% obvious from a still, filtered image, but in my "lived experience" it's always entirely obvious in real life.

In case not posted

I appreciate the fact you put “lived experience”.

Private Eye used to call her Harriet Harperson. I always think of this when I hear her mentioned.

God, Harmann gets on my tit's,and has more front than Brighton!! It's Stonewall: Stonewall law was treated as law, anyone who questioned this was xalleda bugit and potentially threatened with job loss,or even a visit from plod: but she's trying to still sell "be kind,it's all those right wingers faults ". FUCk OFF,YOU DON'T OWN TRUTH, OR THE LEFT

Well, that's me done for. I've had short hair most of my life. Tiny detail that I've given birth to two children, but of course I've never had my chromosomes tested. How could I possibly know which sex I am?

I was in a room with about 100 (!) 16- 18 year olds last year and only a few girls had short hair. From photos I see from a generation ago (eg the 80s) everyone did what they wanted and there was a total mixture.

I think thats due to regressive trans enforcement of gender stereotypes (remember the sexist trans/ mermaids gingerbread person- if you have long hair you're a girl, short hair you're a boy).

Hope that changes soon.

I honestly can’t remember a single time I’ve mistaken a woman with short hair for a man or a man with long hair for a woman. It’s just not a common thing, is it?

I don't.

I'd prefer' in my experience'.

Lived goes without saying. Or you'd be dead.