The SC ruling is good news for people with the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment

[RhymesWithOrange]

Starting a new thread as it seems I broke a rule with my previous attempt.

The Supreme Court ruling should be welcomed by people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The law is now clear, women can be confident that their rights, spaces etc. are protected, and their rights are no longer in conflict with people with a gender recognition certificate. People with a GRC know that the EA2010 protects them from discrimination and harassment.

This should remove the heat and toxicity from the debate and enable everyone to live their lives in safety and peace, expressing themselves in any way they choose.

Win win.

No it’s not good news.
Trans women could now potentially be on a male ward in hospital. They could be sent to a male prison.
In reality they will probably continue to use women’s toilets and changing areas because who is going to challenge them a what proof would they need to see?
it leaves trans women is a very uncertain and vulnerable position.

Then, they are where they should be, due to their sex, and WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SINCE 2010, when the Equality Act came into being.

If transpeople have been sold the lie that they can change sex, and have been using spaces that they are not entitled to, they then should be going after the organisations that sold them that lie. Stonewall, et al

This ruling is fantastic news for transmen, as it allows a pregnant transman the protections of maternity law. It also allows transmen access to abortion, under the Abortion Act.

You can tell that transwomen are quite clearly NOT women, by the simple fact that they were listened to, to the detriment of actual women.

Transwomen should never, ever be in female prisons. There is no situation in which it is appropriate to house a male in with female prisoners.

What is the problem with a male-bodied person being on a hospital ward that houses other male bodied people?

Why shouldn't they be on a male ward, male prison. They are male, always have been and always will.

Men should work harder to make transwomen feel accepted in male spaces surely?

Every prisoner deserves to be safe. There is no reason why men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should not expect to be kept safe in a male prison, like every other prisoner there.

Prisons should demonstrate how this will happen, and the relevant campaigning groups should work with prisons to ensure it does.

Any prisoner who is considered vulnerable should be housed in a vulnerable prisoner unit within the estate for their sex

That's where they should always have been. They are male. Other men need to widen the bandwidth of men to accommodate these men that prefer to present themselves in a stereotypical 'feminine' way. Not women's job to accommodate them. They have been sold a lie that they can change sex and are now women. They're not, but they are protected from discrimination and harassment under the EA 2010 so men need to not discrimate against them when they are using the male facilities/services.

Wayne Couzens as an ex policeman is probably considered a vulnerable prisoner. Should he be moved to a womans prison for his safety?

Why on earth should a transwoman be in a female prison?! The Law is clear, they are male and should be in male spaces.

It’s definitely good news. TM have plenty of additional protection, as they should have, because they have two PCs, sex and gender reassignment.

Interesting that the TAs are never concerned with TM though. It’s almost as though they know who the (low status) women are, isn’t it?

Can you explain why you think they should be on a female ward or in a female prison?

This is already what happens. Most TW who come through the prison system are sex offenders so are housed on VP wings anyway. The few that are not sex offenders are always offered a place on a VP wing, and housed in a single cell where possible. It is then their choice whether or not to move there. There is currently one TW in my establishment who is on main location because although he claimed a female identity when he arrived, he does not present as feminine in any way, shape or form, and seems to be quite happy where he is.

They should go to a male prison and the Prison Service has a duty of care to ensure they are safe like they do for all vulnerable prisoners.

I don't agree it's good news right away, but once the implications are worked through and dealt with then it will be.

Before the ruling: the law permits (with conditions) some women-only things, some mixed-sex things, and some trans-inclusive things (but we got Stonewalled out of our women-only things).

After the ruling: the third alternative is no longer permitted, because the derogation from the law against sex-discrimination is only available (in this context) to single-sex things: law needs amending?

This will force us to think about everyone's needs and how to meet them without unfairness to anyone.

Some sex-segregation is mandated by other laws, such as the Prisons Act, and the ruling will surely be extrapolated from the EA to those other laws - as it should be - they exist for a reason!

It's not as simple as that. Anyone who actually understands the law understands this.

But crack on with the misinformation.

And yes transwomen SHOULD be in male prisons for a variety of reasons but should be with all the other transwomen in male prisons for their own safety and dignity but also for the safety and dignity of women.

Hate to break it to the poster in question but there no male and female wards anymore. They have been mixed for a long time.

So if you are male to female trans your position here has not changed.

Prisons have vulnerable prisoner units and need to protect the individual if they have to go to prison.

Trans rights are still there as they should be. This case just clarified things. Personally if it removes biological men from women’s sports then that pleases me.

Am I wrong in thinking that the current system (not just as of this week, but historically) does leave people who are trans-identifying but who don't have a GRC a bit vulnerable legally?

Maybe we should introduce the additional option of a Trans Recognition Certificate, so that more people can access protection from discrimination based on gender reassignment/gender presentation. This could protect all trans identities in the same way as religious identities, without encroaching at all on anyone's existing rights, and could safely follow a self ID model (as do religious beliefs).

I understand that there are many very vocal activists who would not want to go down this route, but it makes sense to me to have it available as an option for those people who genuinely just want to live their life in peace.

It might need someone to actually define the words "trans" and "gender" though......

You might just as well start again, with:

One. No discrimination for gender nonconformity.

Two. Single-sex things (other than those mandated by law) that are permitted as an exception to the general rule against sex-discrimination, should additionally be allowed to include gender nonconforming opposite-sex people, if they want to.

Thanks to Stonewall's interpretation of the law, trans people have been left with the false impression that they can use single sex spaces that 'match' their identity. What Stonewall really should have been campaigning for was gender neutral third spaces, or to make it socially acceptable to have gender nonconforming men in male spaces (rather than a sign chastising women for judging men in their spaces, there should be signs chastising men for judging feminised men in male spaces.)

For prisons, there has already been a pilot run with separate wings for transwomen only. The only complaint from transwomen about this was that they couldn't use real women as resources to learn femininity. The concerns that people have about the safety of transwomen in male prisons also apply equally to very feminine gay men. And has anyone thought about how awful it would be if transmen were forced to go into male prisons? Most transmen who are convicted want to remain in female prisons.

I don't see it that way - it's more than gender nonconformity, it's a whole belief system. Not one that I believe in (and I'm eternally grateful for the work of women braver than myself who've worked so tirelessly for my right not to believe it) but then again, I don't believe in religion either but I do believe in freedom of religious belief and expression.

And I really don't subscribe to the idea of single-sex with a few exemptions. That's like labelling a food product as 95% vegetarian. Either the single-sex provision is necessary in a particular context, or it's not.

It’s good news for women, it’s not our remit anymore. Men will have to work out how to encompass everyone in their sex class or society can work out third spaces.

The Equality Act already covers this - the protected characteristic is gender reassignment and also someone who is perceived as having the PC of gender reassignment.

Again, the SC ruling will force everyone to very clearly define what "trans", and "transgender" mean. Because neither terms are mentioned in the Equality Act. I think that people with a gender recognition certificate would benefit enormously from this clarity. People like Oli London, Isla Bryson, Pippa Bunce and Alex Drummond have not helped their cause.

I also think the messages this sends to young people is fantastic.

Being a man or a woman is simply a case of being born male or female.

You can behave, dress, present yourself in anyway you like. Your sex is irrelevant in all of that. No matter how you dress or identify, you will have the protected characteristic of sex.