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

No I, and I'm sure many others, aren't fans of the Daily Mail, but today is a day to put aside such feelings and rejoice about the fact that we v-havers can enter a room designed for us and not worry that p-havers may be lurking and claiming a right to be there!

He’s on holiday apparently. I wonder whether he’s checking his emails? 🤔

And it refers to 'cis' women. Am I alone in finding this irritating? I've been a woman all my life, I don't need 'cis' adding on to further qualify that!

They really are pathetically captured. I'm hoping next year's elections to the enlarged Senedd will give us a better balanced government.

In fact, universities are already withdrawing their illegal trans policies after Sussex were fined £585,000 for their appalling mistreatment of Kathleen Stock. They're discovering they are also expected to follow the laws of the land (apologies for the Guardian link)

www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/07/regulator-to-write-to-universities-in-england-over-transgender-equality-policies

@MrsOvertonsWindow I think some are but I wait and watch. I'm lucky that my institution has been quite well balanced on this in many ways but I suspect the same laid back approach will mean they do not highlight the updated policy, if indeed they do update it. In practice, I imagine trans students will still believe they may use whichever space they prefer, as per current policy. It won't be their fault, if it's not made clear.

I’ve NC’d to post this comment but honestly I’m feeling quite lonely today. I’m married to a trans person (who transitioned then detransitioned) and I’m GC; how we got to this position is complicated. The result is that the only remaining friends/acquaintances I have are trans allies at best and TRAs at worst, and everywhere I turn it’s all TWAW chat. I’ve really enjoyed reading these threads and feeling a bit less alone

Hi, I didn't want to make a separate post but after reading hundreds of posts since yesterday and that awful Guardian piece,
I'm still confused about what this means for shops and gyms.

I saw so many posts yesterday along the lines of hurrah! No more men in my gym changing rooms etc.

But won't M&S and my local leisure centre still have Women's/female changing rooms and allow TW in , simply by stating that their policy is gender not sex (women=gender) as they dont have to provide single sex spaces under the EA ??

The guardian piece states the definition of Woman = biological sex is only wrt the EA so woman can still be used to mean gender if providers choose to do so

I'm trying to get clarity on all this

They can make all their changing rooms mixed sex if they wish to but if they have a female changing room then it must only be for females

To offer any space other than single sex it would probably need to be mixed sex, or it would be discriminatory against other people of that sex. There is no “single gender space” provision in law.

Yes, it's a shame it's not forcing everyone to provide women with their own space, but it isn't.

But if they're calling it a women's space it has to be for women only.

If they're not prepared to do that, they have to call the space mixed sex, or unisex. And that allows ALL men in, not just those who identify as women.

Well good luck with that

I see. The Guardian inferred that the SC hasn't clarified the legal definition of woman for all purposes and therefore the words Woman/Female on a toilet door entrance etc could still include TW is wrong?

So M&S and my council gym can't say Woman/Female unless it is actually single sex. They'll have to say mixed sex?

Edit- Cross post with replies..thanks for clarifying

No, it's yet more Orwellian twisting of language and meaning ('It's Latin, it's not new!'), it's unnecessary and it makes it sound like women are a subset of some other larger group of women.

Has anyone else received the email from Independent voices on this issue? I don’t even remember subscribing

Yes, I'm pretty certain that's right. Women now means biological. Not biological women and someone else.

You can't say it's for women, when it means it's also for men

Edited to add and the guardian are captured twats.

Yes, you're right it does!

If you ask for the women's changing room and they should tell you they don't have one. If they show you to a mixed sex changing area without informing you of that, giving the impression it's women only, then that's wrong. Although I don't know what you can do about it.

My guess is that this will take a while to work through. The police and the other captured authorities will pretty swiftly start complying with the law - hence the Transport police reversing their permission for creepy men claiming to be women to indecently assault women under the pretext of legally searching them.
Larger organisations will have to decide what to do. As Datun pointed out M & S will have to be specific - "yes our lingerie / bra fitting changing rooms are mixed sex for men and women" - and take the consequences. Presumably there'll need to be some legal challenges - maybe for a chain of gyms trying to keep certain men wedged into the women's changing rooms?

Metro have borrowed the Guardians quotation marks

I assume most men (not TW) will still want mens changing rooms. So it will be interesting to see if retailers change the women's to unisex and keep the men's for men. I can't see female M&S (and other retailers) customers being happy with provisions exclusively for men but not women.

But as someone has posted elsewhere, Manchester University has unisex and mens. It wasn't like that when I attended years ago and it's telling that they didn't make them all unisex but kept the mens and removed the provision for females.
But I'm not surprised. Men get to keep their things while women get theirs taken away.
Until now

Not true at all. There are only two sexes , even those with DSD are either female or male.

And yes, OP, the headlines are glorious!!!
The atmosphere in the venue where we watched the judgement was electric, the joy we felt when the verdict was announced was incredible, and our celebrations were long and happy! Even thumbs up and congratulations from people in the street who saw the colours we were wearing ! 💚🤍💜

Sadly I have people on my Facebook friends list who feel like trans people are hugely at risk because of this outcome. Some are threatening violence.

They are seriously oblivious to reality.

The reasoning for letting men into women's spaces has been 'we have to do this because the Equality Act'. The belief that it is a legal right for some men to use women's spaces.

That act can no longer be used in that way. For the purposes of the act, a single sex space means biological sex, end of.

We're likely to see emerging guidance appear in the next few weeks which will help. However the next step for women is likely to be to require equality in that it's not ok to provide a men specific space and a mixed sex space, and nothing for women. Particularly women who need a single sex space for their access needs.

Hasn't confusion arisen from the fact that having a GRC turned a man into a woman legally. In that their 'legal sex' was female therefore it was assumed under the EA they had the same sex based rights as biological females?

I know it's been discussed on other threads but I'm also wondering how the SC ruling that TW are men, fits with the fact that they are legally female with a GRC.
I'm sure my head will unscramble as things become clearer.