Reframe your disappointment

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

Inspired by a couple of other threads about the reaction to the Supreme Court judgment from trans allies, I thought it might be interesting to have a thread to discuss what to say to people if it comes up in conversation.

Comments I've seen so far seem to suggest:

• the judgment was legally wrong and this isn't the end
• the judgment might have been legally correct but it was morally wrong and the law needs to be changed
• trans rights are now being rolled back
• this is a victory for the far right
• this was orchestrated and bank rolled by the far right
• this decision will now embolden transphobes to harass and victimise trans people

Perhaps we could brainstorm the best ways to respond to these (and any other) talking points, should they arise?

“the judgment might have been legally correct but it was morally wrong and the law needs to be changed”

I have just commented on another thread that I feel this situation could actually be a turning point for those who really want the best for those who are medically transitioning and therefore no longer fit comfortably into the current sexed spaces that are available to them.

Now the legal situation has been clarified, transactivism should concentrate on working out what could really help those people, and carve out separate rights that work for everyone, rather than trying to piggyback onto the rights of a different group, which they don’t belong in.

I’ve said it’s a legal clarification that will help protect everyone’s rights more effectively in future. That trans people are still protected under two categories- sex and gender reassignment- and women now also have protection. That we needed it clarifying to manage people like Isla Bryson.
I’m going with the line that this isn’t about ordinary trans people, it’s about chancers and abusive fuckers who will take any loophole and see what they can get away with.
Without that clarification in law, we are toothless at protecting women.

On the last point, the judgment was crystal clear that Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic and that trans people are therefore protected from discrimination for being trans.

My main responses would be:

Do you believe that women should be subordinated in law to men, and have less rights than men do?

Do you think that women should be collateral damage to men's wishes and self expression as they have been

If you think that women should be forced to be resources for men to use in their self expression without right to consent, how are you squaring that with any belief that those men are women? There's a sex based power/fate you're wanting on a very binary basis.

Why are you very concerned that men should not experience (x) when women have been experiencing (x) for years- is it all right so long as it is only happening to a woman? (for example being searched by a man)

Waaaah women have too many rights and it's making men sad isn't really much of a sane argument. The needs of those men can be met in other ways, you cannot give them the 'right' to be something they are not in reality, or the right of absolute free use of women in women's spaces without embracing male supremacism. We need to be very honest about that and make people own it, because subconsciously this is really what this is about.

Would like a response got the comment that appears regularly as 'No trans people/organisations were consulted. implication that 'had they only listened to real experts ...' This was also used vs. The Case review and English Black Ball Pool. I

The Wikipedia entry states this ...

'During the hearing, the court received testimony from a number of gender-critical advocacy groups, including Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance, while notably not hearing testimony from any trans people themselves. Prior to the hearing, the court denied a request from the Good Law Project to add testimony from a pair of trans legal experts. Amnesty International submitted testimony in support of the Scottish Government's position.[11][12] '

I think this is a good opportunity for the trans movement to stop treading all over the rights and safety of others, and wasting time on an unauthorised rebranding exercise of women, childbirth etc and get back to supporting the core 1% that need their support.

Some honesty needs to take place. Safe guarding of women and girls comes before the demands of the 1%.

It’s not possible to change biology or dna but it is possible to be recognised as a trans person with unique needs. That a third space should absolutely be made available to accommodate the trans community, and that we can all live together harmoniously without reducing the rights of each other or compromising safety.

I have seen a few things but something that struck me is that it doesn’t actually change anything from 2010, but is a clarification on what the word “woman” and “man” meant when the equality act was written.

There are no changes to the protections for trans-people or for women, but it will prevent mis-readings of the Equality Act when it comes to providing single sex spaces for the safety of women.

Therefore the only TG people it will effect, are those who were exploiting the “ambiguity” in the EQ for their own reasons. For most trans-people it not only doesn’t effect them, but has reinforced those protections they have as a protected class. If TGwomen are women, then they do not need the protections that are unique to their situation ie medical care, discrimination in the workplace etc..,

The toilet issue is a little complicated, and I can see employment law being the bearer of that problem, but it now the EQ can be read clearly it will make it easier to sort out.

Some good ideas here, thank you.

I like the starting point that the judgment doesn't change the law, all it has done is clarify it, and now we know where we stand we can think about where to go from here.

From a legal point of view (IAAL), I would make the point that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK and therefore the judgment cannot be appealed. The law is the law, and the only way to change the situation now is for parliament to amend the Equality Act. (Subtext: it is what it is and we all have to accept it unless and until new legislation is passed to change it.)

From a political point of view, I would say that the Supreme Court judges are neutral and politically independent (this principle is woven into the fabric of the judicial appointments system in the UK, unlike in the US where Supreme Court judges are politically appointed), and their only role here was to interpret the legislation. The legislation itself was introduced, debated and enacted by the last labour government. (Subtext: anyone who thinks this result is due to shady right wing forces interfering in British democracy is talking out of their arse.)

^ This point could be particularly useful if the subject comes up when talking to Americans, because they may not understand that our judiciary is completely independent of our political system and made up of experienced judges who interpret our laws impartially, not like in the US where Donald Trump gets to stuff the Supreme Court full of his batshit crazy friends. We actually have a grown up legal system and so what the Supreme Court says carries weight and can be trusted.

In terms of the issues discussed in the judgment itself, the one I like the best is where it explains that if you create a single sex space or service for women on the basis that you have a legitimate need for it, allowing some biologically male people to use it (who have male bodies and are likely to be perceived as male by many of the female users of that space) undermines the very rationale for its existence as a single sex space.

Say women are A, men are B, trans women are C, and so on. Each of these groups have their own different needs.

What C wants may very well be a shared space with A. But if that isn't what A wants, the shared space is only working for C and not A. And if it isn't working for A, you have lost your legal justification for excluding B.

The judgment makes it clear that all groups matter, and that A and C's needs should both be accommodated, but C's "needs" cannot include being in a shared space with A if that is not what A needs. Otherwise C's needs are being prioritised over A's.

@2021x Yes it's good to state that the law hasn't changed.

What it means is that every time an organisation has used the single sex exemption in the Equality Act to provide a space or service for women, but included trans women within that definition, it has been applying the law incorrectly.

There's also the

• nothing has changed, all you silly wims were making a big fuss for no real reason except as a disguise for your bigotry - so this ruling is actually a WIN for TRSOH because now you Bad People have nothing to hide behind!

If nothing has changed, what are they so upset about?

It's Schrödinger's ruling.

Both horrendously evil leading to extreme victimisation and distress, and utterly irrelevant because nothing has changed.

Do keep up

I am just laughing that women's rights are apparently a far right thing....
Is there anything that is not a far right thing? 🤦

I don’t understand the thing about trans people not being consulted.
The only change is that previously they were getting away with misunderstanding and or misrepresenting the law as it had always been and being in spaces/using services they shouldn’t have been. How would a bunch of them admitting that help their cause?

Nope

I say the law has been clarified by the highest court in the land. And then say exactly what the judge said that trans people are fully protected by law, the same as everyone else.
No-one has removed any rights, they have exactly the same rights as they had last week.

Of course it's a win for the far right. GB News and Reform UK are delighted. Leftists are hardly known for their transphobia are they?

What C wants may very well be a shared space with A. But if that isn't what A wants, the shared space is only working for C and not A. And if it isn't working for A, you have lost your legal justification for excluding B.

Thinking about this made me realise that the whole legal justification for trans-inclusive spaces may now have been lost. (IAAL, but not this area.)

Yet, there are probably lots of GC people who are happy for them to be provided, as long as the need for single-sex provision is also met.

Law maybe needs amendment, not just better guidance.

Surprisingly good piece here once you get past the goady headline:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us

Exquisite comic timing

Oh you again, @Micaela64

You know two things can be true at once? The right wing may be delighted, but not all GC women are right wing. Absolutely fed up of being compared to the likes of Farage and Trump, especially when I spend all day long dealing with discrimination.

and what about the misogyny problem the left seem have?

I hadn’t seen any comment from Reform, could you quote please?

Well Trans rights groups were consulted and listened to and that is how we ended up with interpretations of the law that turned out to not be correct. To say 'You need to listen to our arguments repeatedly until you agree' is not how the Supreme Court (or any court) works.

I assume lots of pro trans groups submitted evidence. (Need to check). In the end only Sex Matters the Lesbian groups, EHRC and Amnesty International were giving evidence in front of the court. So these were the people who the Judges selected to hear from and ask questions of. The trans case had been put clearly/understood clearly by that stage.

is that correct?

I doubt the far right are at all delighted - they want the equality act completely thrown out

This.