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?

I live in NZ . I am so admiring of the women in Scotland who bought this case.
The ripples will spread worldwide. Thank you to the brave Scottish women.

Referring back to the cultural capture of trans rights are more important rights than women's rights.

On the BBC (where else) on WATO the woman presenter (!) was talking to someone about the impact of the ruling on the NHS.

And when it came up to talking about single sex wards she asked couldn't it (be got round?) by saying wards were based on a common gender.

I dont think she was even aware of how stupid that made her sound.

The court case was about SEX.

And even if the BBC thinks sex and gender are the same thing (wonder which year she was at University) how could she ignore that the court said it was about the reality of biology. But she is clearly locked into the concept of identity.

How are we ever going to be able to get rid of this indoctirnated "newspeak"?

I've heard somebody on the radio/TV saying that one of the consequences of the ruling for those poor marginalised trans people is that there are no facilities for them to use now. Nobody suggested 'the ones appropriate to their sex'.

As I said elsewhere/upthread/I'm completely lost in all these threads
This is a particularly dangerous moment for the accessible facilities that disabled people campaigned for for decades - I fear there will be more cases of them being handed over to able-bodied transwomen as consolation prizes for being driven out of the women's toilets.

Accessible toilets are not gender-neutral thirds spaces, and disabled people are no more support animals for trans people than women are😡

I think there is a genuine problem of lack of knowledge, and this is why a clear ruling is so important.
As an example, this morning, on r5, a tra said that there had been no serious problems with mixed-sex wards in hospitals. But, of course, there was the case of the woman raped on a supposedly single-sex ward. The NHS refused to admit for some time that a tw patient was in the ward. Because, to them, they were a woman.

When a TRA feels that a woman being raped by a man is 'not a serious problem' (and should definitely not stop the man having full access to those women, consenting or not, rather than a private space of his own)

you've pretty much seen exactly why women need rock solid gate kept protections in law.

The point was that the tra didn't even know it had happened, which is a bit different.
I spend a lot of time on this board, and have, personally to remember how ignorant most people are about what has been happening over the last decade.

I just wanted to say 100% agree. Labour have lost what they used to stand for. What they stand for now, I do not know. In fact some of the policies they've enacted since they came into power would have been beyond the pale for even the Tories...

At one of the LWS events, someone spoke about a woman who'd had a kidney transplant and so SHOULD have had a private room to prevent the risk of infection, but Because of the stupid rule about TW, a TW was put in a private room and the woman was adversely affected as a result. So women's health is being put at direct risk because of this insane ideology. It made me really angry. I'm sorry I can't remember which one it was said at, I've watched so many of them!

I agree too. I still believe in the general traditional values of the Left, but the Labour Party (and many others) have got so bound up in identity politics, that actually concentrating their energies on trying to make life better for ordinary folk seems to been virtually forgotten about.

Something that made me angry today: my employer (and others are at it as well, I think) issuing a statement to say that they will need to take stock and are awaiting further guidance but in the meantime would like to say that understandably trans people in our community may be feeling undermined or shaken and, as an inclusive community, we have a shared responsibility to support them, blah, blah. In some cases I've seen trans emojis and love hearts...

Had the judgement gone the other way the statement would not have acknowledged what women would have lost (in fact what we have lost over the last 15 - 20 years). No, it would have been: We welcomed the ruling in the Supreme Court as part of our commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive community where everybody belongs. We wholeheartedly support...blah, blah, blah.

One PP on this or another thread (I've been hopping around doing a lot of reading) described commentators as 'funereal'. Would they have been 'funereal' if 'woman' meant 'anyone'. No, they bloody would not. It's been wall-to-wall trans flags in commiseration because we GCs won and it would have been wall-to-wall flags in celebration if we'd lost.

Despite my anger, I am still delighted, of course. But I'm finding it harder to bite my tongue at work.

Edit: typo

Yes, that is so xxxxx true. Says it all, doesn't it?

Yep.

This is something of an antidote to anger: https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/17/the-hilarious-meltdown-of-men-who-think-theyre-women/

I like this although I think it's a bit optimistic: For while this noisy orgy of self-pity might doll itself up as a cry for civil rights, in truth it’s the death rattle of trans activism’s neo-misogyny.

Great work, Brendan! But yeah, I think it's far from over, if I have your meaning right.

You do @moto748e

It's so depressing to see this level of institutionalised misogyny and a complete lack of understanding of how distressing and upsetting many women have found things and been forced to comply out of fear.

All those training courses that did this are now out of date and it will cost a fortune to rectify it in line with the actual law and what the law has been since it was written.

There's no acknowledgement of how women's rights have been illegally violated for years and how these organisations have been part of that.

There's no 'if you think you might have been adversely affected by our unlawful policy, please contact HR'. No. Because they know damn well this is an admission of liability.

Btw these emails expressing concern for one group whilst neglecting to acknowledge how the rights of another have been unlawfully violated, set up a hostile culture for the latter group.

This will actively discourage the latter group to put in complaints and to get the redress they should have under the law.

So this may sound a bit odd coming from me, but worth remembering that behind the loudmouth TRAs are people who for whatever reason have been led to believe, even support to think they can change sex.

Of course they are seeing it as a betrayal.

But the betrayal are not only those who created the GRA and the notion of a GRC (only initially to get round the then forbidden same sex marriage) as saying you can change your sex.

So all those who spent decades burrowing their way into positions of influence in universities, the media and political parties do owe them an apology. The loud mouth TRAs who are basically MRAs have promoted a false reality, which some ended up believing.

So of course it is a betrayal.

But not by the courts, but by the irresponsible, queer culture fanatics who have spent years infiltrating and influencing people who should know better.

If you but money into a savings account and then years later were told the saying account was a fraud, you wouldn't blame the person who exposed it, you would blame the people who misold it.

But of course, its always women's fault.

Not the loudmouth queer males, or their complicit politician fans.

Naughty women have made them see the truth so it is women who are are fault.

I like this although I think it's a bit optimistic: For while this noisy orgy of self-pity might doll itself up as a cry for civil rights, in truth it’s the death rattle of trans activism’s neo-misogyny.

Isn't the anger at something that is just rational and factual actually the final proof that trans women aren't women? Imagine if we all got this angry at every little bit of misogny we experienced everyday?!

Dennis Kavanagh (Barrister on twitter & director of The Gay Man's Network) posted this which I think sums up things perfectly:
https://x.com/Jebadoo2/status/1912861014560768042?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Cut & paste for those not on twitter:
1/ Victory is a difficult thing to trust, and any gender war veteran will be well versed in false dawns, each tribunal often prompts the refrain "surely this will be the last one? surely they'll get it now". But the Supreme Court is different. This is the beginning of the end.
2/ Gender falls in 3 stages. The flight of the cowards. The howl of the zealots. The prosecution of the monsters. The cowards have flown. The zealots have howled. We're firmly in stage 3 in the UK and the reckoning for the mutilators Douglas Murray spoke about now beckons.
3/ Political Transvestitism is now in a state of complete collapse. It sought to reconfigure society by stealth and it sought nothing less that the existential elimination of the concept of "woman" and "homosexual" in law. It still seeks the chemical castration of children
4/ This is the next frontier and the one that merits our attention. The Government intend to conduct a live experiment on a cohort of mainly autistic, mainly likely to grow up gay children because lunatics have been given the keys to the hospital. This must be challenged.
5/ This is no time to walk away or give in to the perfectly understandable impulse to retire from this exhausting, stressful war of ideas. In 15 years time or so there could be a generation of sterile, mutilated children who were regarded as collateral damage to bad ideas
6/ The Supreme Court didn't so much end the gender wars and it reasserted the much missed enlightenment. Facts matter more than feelings. Evidence matters. Basic rights matter and puberty is a human right. Children cannot form pressure groups or exercise political influence
7/ So it's on us. Yesterday For Women Scotland and the interveners saved the gay right to associations. They saved the definition of homosexual. These are significant rights, but we must now turn to the gay right to grow up free from medical correction.

I am also wondering how HR and DEI departments will react, especially those that in effect have sanctioned self ID thus rendering facilities that should be single sex into do whatever you like gender speak, and no stuffs given for women.And have been stonewalled or similar.

Maybe, just maybe, when they see clear as day that they have been on the wrong side of the law, they could as a minimum acknowledge that they too interpreted the law wrong, were poorly advised, didn’t listen to concerns or even consult, and apologise to ALL employees. They could also state clearly similar words that the judge used, so confirming that trans people are protected under the gender realignment clause, as well as being protected under the sex category. And in simple terms what that means in the context of a trans employee.

It seems not: apparently NHS trusts have been writing to their employees saying (effectively - I am paraphrasing) we know this will be a very difficult time for our LGBTQIA+++ community, but know we still love you and are behind you and if you need support please reach out to HR/LGBTQIA+++ support team.

Nothing about oops, sorry women for getting the law wrong all this time.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317262-what-my-nhs-trust-have-said-about-the-supreme-court-verdict

What puzzles me is folk coming on the news saying the new ruling is unclear. How is it unclear. They mean I suppose it isn't the ruling they want or thought they would get.

I heard this too and could not believe my bloody ears. We’ve only just had the judgement and the BBC are asking if the NHS if they’re going to have ‘single gender wards’. Like ‘how are you going to get around this to help the poor disadvantaged trans people?’ No consideration for the dignity of vulnerable women.

We get an unequivocal judgement like this and people still want to tear down our protections. It’s hard to be jubilant when the rhetoric around it coming from supposedly reputable agencies is so bloody depressing. And frankly, baffling. We are talking about pandering to delusional thinking over human reality.

I have now progressed to paragraph 223.
It seems to me that the judgement is very clear in what circumstances single sex provision is necessary in terms of the EA 2010 to avoid discrimination direct and indirect. It does not seem to me that ‘single gender’ wards would meet this, unless the BBC person is using gender to mean sex, which continues to confuse matters. The judgement deals with the conflation of gender and sex early on and is clear that the EA means biological sex.
(I know posters on here know this)

It’s fine to still be there for the LGBTQIA community. I have no objection to this (although this community has people with diverse views, they are not homogeneous but that is another issue). However, I do object to the quite frankly abusive suggestion that the law and women’s objections should be disregarded so that one small section of that community can enter women’s single-sex spaces. And I know there are some women who say they do not mind this, but even if only one woman did not consent, that should be enough. The people who want to ride roughshod over this need to take a hard look at what they are saying.