Aren’t the front pages and headlines glorious!

[SameyMcNameChange]

I know there is a fair amount of bandwagon jumping, but it feels like the newspapers have finally read the room and realised that the SC ruling is welcomed by FAR more people than it disappoints. And so the front pages have smiling faces and headlines that would never have been published before.

Even, for example, the Metro which has had a pretty shocking record before has a pretty clear headline and a picture of smiling women.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd3jg60q4no

I particularly liked The Telegraph's headline of 'Transwomen are NOT women'

Bloody glorious!

You do realise, do you, that the Scottish Ministers' barrister suggested during the hearing that transmen with a GRC should not be entitled to pregnancy and maternity protection? She had to throw them under the bus as logically there was no way for them to have that protection, if the Scottish Ministers had won - and the Scottish Ministers were, apparently, quite happy to do that. Pregnant transmen have protection today only because FWS won.

Can’t you see how that shuts down discussion and is disrespectful to other people’s experience?

The Times are running a poll today asking if the supreme court decision was the right one and it's currently at 96% saying yes

I’ve always supported this cause and I’m pleased at the result but the judge also said that “the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another”.

Sex is binary. There is no nuance. The reason that institutional capture has been so widespread is because TRA's have insisted that there is nuance, when there's not.

So feel free to bring up some discredited opinion pieces for us to discuss. And it'll be challenged, as it as it always is.

But that was exactly the problem - if a GRC really did change the sex of a trans man, they would no longer be entitled to maternity protections which are, for reasons of scientific reality, defined in the Equality Act and other legislation as applying only to women.

If you’ve got a point to make or a position to put forward why don’t you just make it in full rather than just coyly suggesting other posters are being unfair by not agreeing with your general view.

Can’t you see how that shuts down discussion
Remind me. Who invented the slogan #NoDebate.

I realise that sounds a bit sharp – I mean it sincerely, the intention isn’t snark!

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is in the wilderness. This ruling hasn't given or taken away anything but has just clarified what the law is and always has been.

Plenty of people in responsible positions have broken the law in detriment to women and girls. Why aren't you outraged at that instead?

However, I've just been listening to Sarah Montague on BBC Radio 4 'The World At One' and she was suggesting to an NHS administrator that " perhaps the ruling could be got around by turning wards into single gender, rather than single sex". Honest to god! What is it she doesn't understand, and why?

And then some doctor wanging on about being "compassionate".

Women will have single sex which is great.

If it’s too hard for men to be supportive then hospitals will have to work out third spaces.

Women are not part of this set up, it’s not our remit anymore. Which is incredible and should have always been the case.

This does not mean that trans people who experience their gender differently to their sex - are dismissed as talking rubbish or lying. They are clearly trans and have protections from discrimination as such.
What it does mean is that people who experience their gender as different to their sex - can't just demand that they always be treated exactly the same as people of the biological sex that matches their own trans gender identity. As people of the female biological sex have some protections for important reasons.
Eg. Fairness in sport and safety in places where women are particularly vulnerable such as hospitals/changing rooms and prisons.

There are lots of things that outrage me, @BiologicalRobot . This thread is about whether the ruling is ‘glorious’. I disagree that it is ‘

They are indeed glorious @SameyMcNameChange.😊

The ruling.🎉
The headlines.🎉
The women.💪👏❤️

Nope.

Homosexuality has never been explicitly illegal in the UK. Rather, the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults over the age of 21 and carried out in private. Why was that? Because - again - you can't make laws based on feelings. Particularly, you cannot withdraw or restrict the legal rights of others on that basis, with the example of a pregnant transman provided here being a good one.

The key point here of course is that, as the court recognised, trans people are entitled to protections under the Act. They are simply not entitled to identify into another protected characteristic on the basis that they have identified into a sex.

Aw no this is missing my personal fave, which was especially frequent in the aftermath of government guidance that schools and clinics should no longer use the phrase or the concept 'born in the wrong body'...

"Gender identity is so complex and esoteric that we could never explain it to you dullard cis people!"

It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal (with picture) and the Washington Post (also with picture). There were mentions in the Hindustan Times, Times of Malta, The Jerusalem Post, The Manila Times, almost every Irish paper and most of the other middle east and asian English language titles.

Quite the achievement.

I've just read a BBC article that some tra organisations may try to put pressure on the government to change the Equality Act. It genuinely made me laugh. We got a Government petition over the 100,000 line (thank you JKR) for a debate to get it clarified. The tras had a parallel petition to leave the EA as it was!🤣

Anyone with any knowledge of chromosomes knows that sex is biological but gender is societal.
Besides which, there are actually 3 sexes:
male
Female
Intersex born with both male and female reproductive organs

This it world stand to reason that intersex aren't even human at this point, since they are neither fully biologically male or female.

No there isn't. People with "intersex" conditions are either male or female

Wings Over Scotland has the Scottish papers, including this classic from The Scottish Sun.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-day-everything-changed/

Not human? You're an imbecile

You can’t have a nuanced discussion unless you define terms. All that has happened, @Darker , is that terms have been clarified.

Now The nuanced conversation can happen.

Trans people still have protection in the equality act, both under sex and under gender reassignment.

Women’s protection has been clarified. Without this decision, women had no protection. No way to keep Isla Bryson out of women’s prisons. No way to make sure at least some women make it onto boards- no way to count whether women are making it onto boards.