Politicians respond to the SC judgement

[ArabellaScott]

A thread to gather politicians' responses to yesterday's Supreme Court judgement.

1. Stella Creasy. She's rather unhelpfully posted a pdf, (and turned off replies), so archive below.

https://archive.ph/8T1Yl

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/1912609872430133697

Oh no don’t be sorry it’s a really useful thread thanks.

It’d be interesting to see if there’s an emerging pattern with the parties.

I agree. I can only assume that all these disappointed people are disappointed because womens rights are being recognised which unsurprisingly makes me recoil at the thought of voting for them and their partys.

Women win major ratification of their rights

Loads of politicians in response (including Harriet Fucking Harman): Men still have rights too! I stand with men!

Jesus wept

Great thread.

I know it's Twitter but the replies to politicians who are still captured or are trying to reverse-ferret are brutal.

I’m awaiting my local MPs instagram post on this but I know what it will say. She has already outed her TWAW stance by saying that when she was a competitive swimmer as a teen she’d have been happy to race against a TW… 🙄

Community notes are my favourite part of the new Twitter.

This one is absolutely devastating

Well done Karin!

And yes, Theresa May would have brought in Self-ID if Brexit hadn't prematurely ended her premiership.

The Tories need to shoulder the blame for squandering their majority on this matter.

Brilliant. Amazing how they think they can get away with being lying liars.

I can't find Humza's response, any idea where it is?

Shona Robison is a fucking liar. interviewed by LBC:

https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1912504661195583986

NEW: Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison tells LBC that the Scot Govt "accepts the judgement which clarifies the inconsistency between the GRA 2004 and the 2010 Equality Act" and will now work with the UKG and the EHRC
"because of course it was their guidance that we followed"

Asked what her message is to the women campaigners who feel vindicated today, she says "two Scottish courts upheld the government position and the guidance" but that will have to be amended and the SG will follow the new guidance

Asked if its time for the Scot Govt to step in and tell public bodies to change policies - to tell NHS Fife to settle with Sandie Peggie, she says "the guidance will be changed on the GRPB Act which is the test case", says not appropriate to comment on a live case

"but we would expect every public body to follow revised guidance" says public bodies have been following EHRC guidance. Is she blaming the EHRC for this legal case? "No, not at all but we acted in good faith in the interpretation of those two pieces of legislation"

Does she think her govt took the wrong tone on this issue with women campaigners, being told their concerns were not valid by former FM Nicola Sturgeon? "I have always been very careful to stress the importance of recognising there are different views - it has become divisive.

"I want the govt to work towards having a country inclusive of everyone's rights - rights on all sides need to be protected, and the judgement brings clarity. I am keen for us to be careful with our language, It's really important in terms of tone. I've always tried to do that."

How much has this fight cost Scottish taxpayers? "That will all be laid out in due course in a very transparent way and will be set out in the public domain in due course"

Who should be held responsible for the loss - and the cost? "The govt acted in good faith on the basis of legal advice and guidance from the EHRC, which was upheld in the Scottish courts."

Do women campaigners, who have been branded bigots and worse for knowing that biological sex matters, deserve an apology from their govt? "I've never used language like that. I have never felt it was helpful in what was a polarised debate.

There should be no one side that should feel it has "won", It's not about a victory for one side or the other. And as a woman and feminist I think the govt has a proud record of action on protecting women and girls."

Any squeaks from the Lib Dems? Has Ed Davey got anything to say?

@ArabellaScott I’m sorry I got it wrong. it was anas sarwar (not humza yousef) Callum McDonald and Helen Joyce were referring to. It was on about 8.30am this morning. I was busy working outside at the time, multitasking. Apologies again.

No worries, thank you!

This was never an issue in the noughties, before the Tories came in. Well put, Liz Truss supported self ID too (I think, difficult to remember much about her 49 days in power).

This might already be posted.

Minister for Women and Equalities, @bphillipsonMP, on the For Women Scotland ruling ⬇️
https://x.com/oeogovuk/status/1912525975750852646?s=46&t=WScrxVFRuDfjwPSyO3wLfA

The fucking cheek of it.

I assume that "we" refers to the government led by a PM who thinks that 1% of women have a penis and with a Foreign Secretary who thinks that males can grow a cervix?

More lies from Labour.

Very few politicians stood up for women before this ruling. Labour / Starmer and co did not.

Those that did were treated badly.

Its interesting / maddening to see we need to stand with men line. Women don’t actually, why should they?

It’s no longer our remit. Men can sort this issue for their own sex class.

😂😂😂😂
Transparency?! From scotgov?!?! Oh please, they expect us to believe that?!😂😂

Kate Osborne, Labour.

Retweeted 'Labour for Trans Rights'

https://x.com/Lab4TransRights/status/1912444326434439466

And publishes this:

https://labourlist.org/2025/04/supreme-court-trans-rights-labour/

'Sex refers to biological attributes, and there are cases where spaces or services must be organised according to sex. But gender relates to social identity, presentation and perception of others , and often, dignity and protection must be afforded based on how a person is perceived in social terms.
For most people, sex and gender align — but for others, they do not, and the law must be equipped to deal with this distinction and these cases.'

Which cases does she put in the former category, and which in the latter, I wonder? She's talking about passing, isn't she?

It doesn’t change woman only can only be that.

Unless Labour try to overturn the law somehow. They’d be mad to.

It’s so depressing @ArabellaScott Has our dear leader uttered the words single sex spaces or is he still twisting into “women’s safe spaces” I wonder.

As for the Greens it’s sad. I’m a left leaning environmentalist… both parties lost me and had the chance now actually to comprehend what this ruling means. To be honest, I wish they would be clear on what they mean so something like “I believe TWAW and so even if biologically male, should be allowed to enter women’s single sex spaces as they wish”. Isn’t this what they are actually saying?

Ed Davey, on BBC TV news

1. a face on him like a dog eating a wasp.

1. a lot of more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger side-to-side head shaking.
2. exasperated calls for clarity, as we are in the dark about what this all means..

What part of "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."
doesn't he understand?

Still not had time to read past para 175, but my impression so far is that every step of the interpretation necessary for the judgement is clear, well-argued and grounded upon/evidenced from statute, case law, submissions and extra-judicial writing, as you would expect from a panel of five judges (Justices?) in the Supreme Court. Right down to the general questions about what a law should do and what the public should expect from a law. It is a work of admirable clarity which can be understood by a lay person.

What Ed Davey possibly means is that the implications of that judgement for the countless organisations and groups who interpreted the law wrongly have yet to be worked through (although I do not believe this is rocket science), and it is not yet clear whether the government or subsequent governments will now seek to re-write the Equality Act 2010. My feeling is that the judgement precludes this latter course by explaining the problems which follow when one includes certified sex in the definition of sex, but who knows? One possible response is to take sex out as a protected characteristic but I cannot see that being a vote winner (that said, Scotgov did manage this sort of by excluding misogyny from the hate crime law, so not beyond the bounds of possibility - now I wonder whether they are in breach of the EA 2010 by having done that…).

Christine Jardine, Edinburgh West MP and Lib Dem Spokesperson for Women and Equalities, and Scotland 🙄

x.com/cajardinemp/status/1912851974510227643?s=46&t=oDS1z41buc3wz57DALNQuA

Maggie Chapman article in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d019c388-712a-40b5-99a4-9b52b185457b?shareToken=25a48c36301abc0dbb160ec9ed01d21d