Finally a response from Keir Starmer to SC ruling.

[LadyBracknellsHandbagg]

A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.
I actually welcome the judgment because I think it gives real clarity. It allows those that have got to draw up guidance to be really clear about what that guidance should say.
So I think it’s important that we see the judgment for what it is. It’s a welcome step forward.
It’s real clarity in an area where we did need clarity, I’m pleased it’s come about.
We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgment.

Thoughts?

Whilst obviously glad he's in agreement and not trying to push against this sensible ruling, my first thoughts almost always are what a pathetic, flip flop, jellyfish of a man.

Boaty McBoatface telling the press office to issue a quote in Starmer's name is not as good as Starmer saying the thing on camera, but it may be the best we can get. I haven't seen such an example of a PM being dragged kicking and screaming to admit something since... well, since Boris.

I'm pleased he's said it. He's not said quite enough for me to forget how grumpy he got when he was pressed about what he meant by 'single sex' during the general election campaign, or the way John Healey (his shadow defence secretary at the time) dismissed the issue as a distraction. But I do believe him (Starmer) when he says he's pleased it's come about because I think this has dug him out of a very big hole.

Have you seen the guardian's official view:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/20/the-observer-view-on-equality-act-ruling-a-dignified-compromise-that-respects-the-rights-of-everyone

Observer view - their editorial line has always been different to the Guardian on this issue.

I doubt that. Single sex toilets are the norm in this country, it would be very costly to change them. And the law says there's no need to.

not enough clarity in starmer's statement

God, it looks so pathetic written out like that.

Like his only thoughts are those of the last person he spoke to.

And, so abundantly clear that there's no conviction for women or trans people. Just whatever he thinks will be the most popular opinion, hedge betting every single step of the way.

He's managed to knock trump down the page on the bbc app

He is saying the minimum he can get away with while putting out his female colleagues to be clear and take the flak. He is a revolting, weasly, little man

Spot on, that's exactly how I've always felt about it.

I just think for the guardian to do a U-turn on this is massive.

The big MRP poll from More In Common has a useful list of cabinet ministers currently under threat of losing their seats to Reform, some of whom have relevant responsibilities.

• Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) - previously the noisiest TRA in cabinet, currently very quiet.
• Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton) - ensuring joined up government policy and appointing a new chair of the EHRC.
• Yvette Cooper (Pontefract) - getting the cops to implement sex based policing.
• Bridget Phillipson (Sunderland) - women and equalities brief as well as education.

Even if you don't like Reform, having those ministers' feet held to the fire is very useful.

Of course there's always Nandy, and if she reverse ferrets (I suspect she isn't capable) then they really are in a bad position.

More in Common's April MRP

It hasn’t yet. The observer have a different team and stance on women’s rights compared to the guardian.

It's in the Observer who have always been more sensible on this issue than the Guardian, so not a U-turn although it's still a very good, clearly written article. (My guess is that Sonia Sodha wrote it.) .

The BBC item can't decide whether it's trans women or transwomen. It's all over the place. I thought news outlets had a style book and were supposed to stick to it.

If the law says that a trans man can’t use either male or female toilets, I suspect that absence of unisex toilets is indirect discrimination in the same way that absence of disabled toilets would be.

Without specific legislation, I would guess that service providers would have to make reasonable adjustments. Not sure how to quantify that - many facilities are not accessible to people with disabilities even if that does exclude them.

I suspect it will be an ongoing discussion, which I support, as long as women’s rights are protected. I’m all for reality based debate.

I stand corrected re the G! X

I've done the same thing many, many times @BabyOrca!

I don't think it is indirect discrimination - there are toilets available for their biological sex which they can use. They may not wish to, but the facilites are there

What's wrong with using "male transexual" to remove all confusion? Transexual is the word used in the GRA.

If it bothers them that much they could always shave their beards off so they don't stand out in the ladies. Maya recently tweeted something to the effect that if you make extreme body modifications then you will have to live with the consequences.

I'd like to think that KS is fully behind this ruling. His and the Labour Party's view on this issue was one of the two reasons why I voted Tory for the first time ever. I contacted the Labour Party about it on a number of occasions and whilst there were some MPs who clearly agreed with my view (they tended to be older more traditional labour MPs.) My local prospective labour MP who was elected and is female couldn't be bothered to get back to me and the person I spoke to at head office gave me lecture in which he said this is difficult for me as you don't know me - true but that is the same when speaking to anyone for the first time on the phone and I was phoning to put my point forward which clearly he thought was not worthy of listening to. Unless labour really show they are backing this ruling and moving away from this ideology I won't be voting for them (and next time round they will need all the votes they can get.)

I wonder if his first draft was a little different: "fucking hell I'm screwed", before he was advised to make minor changes.

Agree with @PrettyDamnCosmic

What's wrong with using "male transexual" to remove all confusion? Transexual is the word used in the GRA.

I decided that terms I won't use in conversation (or messages like this unless I am explaining why) are trans, transwoman, transman - or hyphenated / with gaps).

Trans is a vague and avoidant word. Does it mean transalpine, transexual, transgender, transport? Transwoman, as commonly used, feels like a lie. I use 'transexual male' and 'transexual female'. My using those terms has caused some discomfort in others a couple of times.

Of course what feels bleeding obvious to me sometimes doesn't to some captured by a cult.