Women's Rights in the UK

[UnhappyAndYouKnowIt]

I was talking with a friend this morning about the Supreme Court case, and she perceived it as removal of trans people's rights and a denial of their existence.

I wanted to emphasise that the need for a clear definition of "woman" is needed in order to ensure that women's rights are protected.

But when she questioned what I meant by women's rights, I got stuck for a minute. The discourse has focused so much on toilets and changing rooms that I actually couldn't remember!

Eventually I said it's the right to not be discriminated against because of your biology. Is that pretty much right?

So, the right to not be fired for getting pregnant.

The right to paid time off work to recover from pregnancy.

The right to access contraception to avoid getting pregnant.

The right to end a pregnancy in some circumstances.

The right to not be prevented from voting because of biology.

The right to not be prevented from having a bank account without a husband's permission due to biology.

The right to not be prevented from owning property because of biology

The right to not be paid less for the same job because of biology.

Am I missing anything?

Is the right to single sex spaces actually a woman's right? Or is it a human right because men also have the right to single sex spaces where it's necessary for privacy and dignity?

Could trans people's rights to be free from abuse and harassment eventually lead to trans spaces being enshrined in law for their privacy and dignity?

Luckily the majority of people seem it as what it is, a clarification of existing law. Single sex spaces are important, transwomen are men, they are not excluded from.ising the mens.

I would ask your friend what has actually changed between today and yesterday, what has been taken away?

Does the ruling mean that If say I don't want to get changed in the same room as someone with a penis, I won't be fired?

You've always been able to say that and not be fired, from a legal point of view.

I think she does feel that it's an attack on trans people's existence. That the aim is to humiliate and exclude them from society.

Tell that to Sandie Peggie who got suspended for objecting to a trans women in the ladies changing room. There's a tribunal about it ongoing.

Or the Darlington nurses who are also having issues

Well she is wrong then isn't she.

The NHS knows full well they were in the wrong there, and they are now going to answer for it (hopefully).

Single sex exemption have always existed, the company just was afraid to uphold them because of a controling arsehole of a man.

They only need to be excluded from spaces that are single sex. They can exist in their own sex space.

I guess maybe she is just wrong on this one. I'm not used to finding myself on a different side of an argument with her and it makes me second guess myself.

It's crazy, the verdict was what everyone was hoping for and somehow I still feel like the bad guy.

All those ‘rights’ you’ve mentioned have surely been in existence for decades?
I believe women are also allowed to own property in their own right. Continue to work following marriage…?

The rights now confirmed by the Supreme Courts is that only females are entitled to call themselves women. Not men that have some inner feelings of their impression of womanhood.

I guess you will politely have to agree to differ on it. I have the same with a couple of friends, luckily mostly it’s good natured.

the aim isn’t to humiliate and exclude anyone

where anyone actually includes women who were being forced out and humiliated.

transpeople can exist with their sex or ask for alternative arrangements. Simple. Women have asked for alternative arrangements and are slowly getting them - safety gear that fits, a private space for changing in. Transpeople can do the same.the law is clear - it is their right. It has not been removed

I think in respect to the ruling, women’s rights is about the right and ability to define ourselves as a biological sex class.

Which isn’t to say people who consider self-defined gender to be an important characteristic can’t define themselves in that way too, and fight for rights etc. on that basis, they just can’t jump on the sex-class of women to do it. (I also think they’ll have a really hard time showing commonality and shared needs between people that share a gender identity as it’s such a variable and changeable concept, but the ruling doesn’t stop them from trying).

Yes, those rights have been in protected in the UK for decades now.

I included them because previously women in the UK were denied those rights purely because of their biological sex.

That's why the clarification of the legal definition of women is important. If suddenly "woman" meant something else, then all the previous laws based on biology become unstable.

Your friend is only looking at it from the point of view of a transwoman. Yes it must be hard if youve been told for years that you have a pink brain, are trapped in the wrong body and really you are a woman, to now be told that’s not the case. But if you look at it from the point of view of nurses who had to get changed in front of a man and be suspended if they complained it feels different.

The right to not go back to the time when men got to decide what a women was.

Well the FWS case started because transwomen were being included as women in quotas on a board? Or something like that was it?

So that’s one place to start- if a board of directors has a requirement to have a certain percentage of women then includes transwomen in that percentage biological women loose representation to biological males.

crime stats. There been a big uptick in violant sexual crimes since transwomen are recorded as women. Where the transwomen are recorded as a group we see more violent sexual crimes than the biological cis male groups. So that feeds into the rights of women and children to safe spaces like changing rooms and wards and female prisons.

the rights of sick and disabled women to receive intimate care from biological women not risk loosing care for hate speech to staff for insisting on this.

the rights of lesbians to have lesbian groups. To say they are only attracted to biological women without that being hate speech. To not be told to get over their genital preferences and accept girl dick. Although I doubt the law being clarified with stop the disgusting abuse lesbians have been subjected to for not using their bodies for male gratification.

woman’s sports. Woman’s awards. Woman’s grants.

Much more I may come back and add.

The ONS had to admit due to the advice they gave the statistics on trans people from the last census is useless.
So that's another area

Well she’s wrong, tell her she should inform herself. No one is ‘attacking trans people’s existence’ (the hyperbole!) it is merely a clarification that when sex is mentioned in relation to the Equality Act it means biological sex.

Sex is binary, it is immutable and cannot be changed, being a woman isn’t a feeling in some blokes head.

Is the right to single sex spaces actually a woman's right? Or is it a human right because men also have the right to single sex spaces where it's necessary for privacy and dignity?

Excellent questions & OP, @UnhappyAndYouKnowIt

And I'd say, yes, single-sex spaces for privacy & dignity are important for everyone. Men don't want women in their spaces.

But the added extra for girls & women is that we are physically vulnerable to stronger men (I mean I can deadlift 100 kilos, but I'd be pretty rubbish tying to fight off a man determined to assault me) .

And we are more often the victims of sexual assault. The stats are thus:

98% of sexual crime is perpetrated by men/boys

The victims are around 78% women & girls.

But as for your friend's idea that the judgement is

removal of trans people's rights and a denial of their existence.

This is so so extreme and incorrect.

Gender reassignment is still one of the 9 protected characteristics in the Equality Act of 2010.

There is no hierarchy of rights with regard to protected characteristics. So there will be clashes sometimes.

But what sort of a view of women (51% of the population) does your friend have that she/he thinks that simply stating biological reality of women removes the rights of men intending to or undergoing gender reassignment?

Pretty grim, frankly. And irrational.

And the other really awful thing I have to add about those sexual crime stats:

Transwomen (self-id and GRC, I assume) commit sexual crimes at the same rate as men in the general population.

So transitioning doesn't stop trans-identified men from committing sexual crimes.

I think her view of the world in general at this stage is pretty grim. Maybe because of where she lives or the nature of her work and who she interacts with 🤷‍♀️.

I can see why some people see this ruling as “removing trans rights”, because it confirms that Stonewall’s interpretation of the law was wrong, and that organisations shouldn’t have been conflating sex and gender in the first place, but obviously they did because Stonewall pressured them to do so.

That said, all the ruling did was to confirm the only logical way to interpret the existing Equality Act; the judges weren’t deciding what they think the EA should say - they were deciding what it actually means as already written. It’s all very clear from the judgment why this was the only outcome that makes sense, and they painstakingly tested each interpretation (sex vs ‘certificated sex’) for each relevant provision in the act and analysed the outcomes in making their decision (which is why it’s so long).

If people aren’t happy with their position changing, they should question who was pushing for an erroneous interpretation of the EA to be implemented in society in the first place, and should question why Stonewall chose to funnel their resources into wilfully misinterpreting the law instead of actually carrying out their remit of lobbying the government to change the law to better provide for trans people.

"the aim isn’t to humiliate and exclude anyone"

Oh please, why do you all go around calling them "men" rather than "trans women" then? Of course that's the aim and you all should be ashamed of yourself for bullying a tiny minority of people who are already marginalised.

Because they are a subset of men?

This has now been clarified by the courts.