At first I cheered, then I got angry at the years of bullying and misinformation women have been subjected to

[IwantToRetire]

The Supreme Court has said the word sex in the EA means biology - fantastic! Credit due to FWS for persisting.

But why did we need a court to say this?

Because TRAs have spent years spreading misleading information.

So then you have to ask why, for instance, was Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre able to advertise a vacancy as being under the Single Sex Exemptions but appointed a man who self identified as a woman.

None of the institutions in Scotland did anything to tell them they were breaking the law. Not funders, not politicians, not charity overseers - not even the organisation representing Rape Crisis Centres in Scotland.

Is this a specifically Scottish problem? In other parts of the UK posts advertised using the SSE no other women's service provider has done this. (As far as we know). Some women's service providers only offer SS services, some offer SS Services and also trans services, which shows they know the law. And advertise accordingly ie whether SSE or transinclusive.

When and who is going to investigate how those with power colluded to undermine the meaning of the SSE. And why Stonewall law was allowed or even promoted.

And we know the poison of the misinformation has spread particularly in more social, informal settings across the UK, and even the right of lesbians to be lesbian ie same SEX attracted.

But the added bonus of today's ruling is that with the judgement that sex is biological then the instance that the case was first started about, eg representation on boards, means companies can not include trans women to improve a companies SEX equality achievements.

And also now women's sport, women's changing rooms, women's toilets, women's (Ladies?) pond, and .... are going to mean SEX based.

So as I know there are many other threads celebrating the FWS victory today, just wanted to ask how is it possible that so many people and institutions were so willing to accept the misrepresentation that women's rights were subservient to trans rights.

And could this happen again?

This is legal illiteracy.

Judges don't consult. Politicians do.
Judges interpret what politicians have already written and then decide how actions fit with this already written law.
A consultation is not needed when deciding whether something is lawful or unlawful.

The fascinating part of the 'consultation' argument was that when women were asking for political consultation on this matter and saying that the law was being misinterpreted, there was a whole movement saying that women shouldn't be involved in discussions over equality saying that it was a trans rights issue only.

Again this is fundamentally missing the point that the act that's important here is the Equality Act. And the Equality Act is about balancing the rights for all protected characteristics.

Stonewall actively and deliberately tried to stop consultation which is why we ended up in court in the first place because various bodies failed to recognise what was law (and therefore not negotiable) and what was political (and how law is created).

Judges don’t consult though?

@TheOtherRavenI think we agree, read your post quickly.

I’m so relieved today but angry at the lies we’ve been told to take by politicians and institutions.

I want those people held to account.

Wow, the Indy is really doubling down! Going where the Guardian has thought better of going. They are going to start to look pretty silly and isolated. Well, I hope so, anyway! 😀

There have been comparisons made between TRAs and gasllighting narcissistic partners in abusive relationships - the use of DARVO [Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender] for instance.

This morning it feels a bit like that - yesterday was air-punching and victorious and the truth will out and justice has been restored. Today it's back to the familiar reverse victim/offender phase, look at us poor marginalised transfolk, look what those nasty women did to us🙄

It's a horrible feeling in personal relationships- just when you thought you had brought reality back into play - bang, DARVO!

This feels similar, and I'm angry about being made feel like that. In fact, I feel upset as well as angry, to tell the truth. Sometimes the political feels personal

It would be so much worse if I didn't have these threads to participate in, to know that we are all thinking and feeling similar things, in great numbers, so thank you all 💚 💜

What sickens me most is Labour’s gaslighting. ‘We have always been clear’ no you fucking haven’t!!!!

Keir ‘some women have penises’ Starmer. The audacity boils my piss.

Quite.

just wanted to ask how is it possible that so many people and institutions were so willing to accept the misrepresentation that women's rights were subservient to trans rights.
And could this happen again?

This is not just about misogyny. That is not even the main factor.

This phenomenon has to be seen within the wider political context of "left vs right".
Over the last few decades, the left has all but abandoned the traditional concern with economic inequality, capital, and re-distribution of wealth.
The left used to be all about defending the "poor" from the "rich". That is no longer fashionable. It is at best a side-line.
Instead, economic justice as a driving force was replaced with "social justice".
The left became all about anti-racism, anti-discrimination, and identity politics.

The thinking of these people goes like this:

The left are the "good people". I am left-wing, I am a good person.
I must not let myself be a bad person.
Anti-discrimination is good.
Gay rights are good.
Trans rights are just like gay rights. (Note - this is the step where the logic is flawed).
I must protect trans rights to prove that I am a good person.
It is old fashioned to stand up for women's rights, like those mad bra-burning feminists of the 1970's - that is just so last century. Women are already equal. It won't make me look like a modern good person to prioritise women over trans. (That is, if women even enter their thought process - that is the misogyny, to forget women).

The left needs to get back to focussing on economic inequality and dump all the 'identity' crap.

I am not sure where to put this.

Am I alone in thinking that all the Employment Tribunals and Appeals concerned TransWomen - and that there has been no case instigated against a TransMan?

I am not saying it's only affected women, because some men have been hounded out of jobs also, and being called Transphobes and Bigots.

No, they hear evidence and arguments from each side.
In this case, they also took a small number of written and oral submissions from interveners, if that is the right word.
The defender here was Scotgov, who have amply consulted with trans groups to write the policies being challenged in court.
I am only at para 175 but my understanding is that the judgement gives a detailed explanation how various intersecting pieces of legislation should be interpreted and following from that, why Scotgov was wrong in its interpretation of the law. In fact, the judgement goes as far as to say that any other interpretation than sex is biological would make the Equality Act incoherent.
The only reason one could object to the judgement is if one holds dearly to the proposition that biological men should be allowed into single sex female spaces, regardless of the law, on the basis of a piece of paper or the intention to get a piece of paper (and vice versa for women and men’s single sex spaces). The judgement lays out the problems with this proposition.

Same.

They have got very comfortable with lying.

Yes …. Remember whenever asked about single sex spaces the answer referred to women’s safe spaces.

That so many doctors, lawyers, nurses, judges, police etc decided, despite all they know about the world, that sex doesn’t matter has seriously eroded trust in the fabric of society.

that things went so wrong so fast, & people pushed an obvious cult based on lies & bullying has shocked me for years & still does.

it is surreal.

The News Agents podcast on YouTube was a disgrace. Lewis Goodall saying it should have been decided by Parliament and the poor trans, Jon Sopel looking as if he'd been personally inconvenienced and complaining about the celebrations outside the Court and Emily Maitlis looking furious implying we're to blame for populism and putting Trump in the White House.

Ridiculous

Was replying to someone upthread but the quote didn't work!

I will be furious that all this happened for the rest of my days on this planet.

There is no reset button for all the politicians and orgs that enabled it. I can't imagine a time when it won't play a part in my voting intentions etc., even years from now.

As a smart woman once said "if you tell me women have penises why would I believe anything you say again".

That, and the academics who fell for it, promoted it, fostered it and hounded people out of their jobs for it.

If I ever get a tattoo, it will probably say, 'Pissed-off realist'.

Feeling fairly pissed off with ITV's 1.30 news bulletin (missed BBC1 1 o clock news).
They had a transwoman on (don't know who it was) who was all up in arms about how it would now be unsafe in toilets etc if they have to use the male toilets rather than the female.
At no point did the interviewer bother to mention that this is exactly what women (Darlington nurses etc) have been putting up with and fighting against. And that this is one reason it needs to be clarified in law!

The best and easiest example is of the doctor trying to treat a trans person.

If they treat them in line with their sex they could be found guilty if discrimination under the equality act.

If they treat them in line with their gender they could be negligent because their care would be of a standard below clinical minimums and could harm.

None of this is in the best interests of trans people and it would leave doctors vulnerable to litigation regardless of their actions.

And that's similar to the situation Sandie Peggy found herself in.

Unfortunately, even though in an interview Harriet Harman tried to lie about it, the EA as amended to accomodate (promote the GRA) was written to say that "for purposes" men were "legal women".

If they hadn't intended that they wouldn't have had to write (which they very kindly did - joke) the single sex exemptions. The mere fact that the SSE were written ie to say on a few occassions a man with a GRC should not be seen as a woman, shows that Labour as the then Government intended that men could become women!

If they hadn't intended that then the SSE would just have been about as in advertising jobs etc., would be to show when it was legal to say something could be single sex eg clubs, associaitons, etc., etc..

So Labour's attempt at social engineering has been foiled by the Surpreme Court.

I haven't read the ruling in full and wonder who they could possibly have said that in the EA sex = biology.

I have seen some public comments saying a court or Judge does not have the power to define sex.

I suspect this will be one of the grounds on which people will campaign against this ruling.

Totally agree and it makes my blood boil. Being trans is ultimately a choice - no one is “born” in the wrong body. You can’t choose to “become” someone of the more oppressed gender, and then claim that you are even MORE oppressed and need more rights than they have.

There are at least 2, though undoubtedly more, issues that the impact of the GRA in the EA has has on women's rights.

One is that most of this isn't about the law but the almost stranglehold the trans agenda, Stonewall law) has had on society from education thought to employment throught to politics

This is why so many people, even on reading the SSE saying a man with a GRC should NOT be included in women only services, just ignored it. ie prioritising women's rights was just not considered.

As women we know only too well we aren't listened to, or if heard just ignored, or basically told you may have a point but other people (men) should be the final arbitrators.

The other, and I didn't think a Court could effectively say that those who wrote a bill that clearly was saying men with a GRC are women, to then say the bill always meant that sex meant biology. (Still haven't read the whole judgement.)

I have seen interviews with trans people saying if this case is right, why were they told they had to get a GRC to be accepted as the other sex.

Does this mean as others have said on other threads, that people with a GRC will just become a small group representative of a particular period of time.

Or will these people have a legal case saying they were mislead by the law and / or betrayed by Government / the law.