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?

He missed the word biological out of his definition of what a woman is. So what we have is a KS version of what a woman “might” be , possibly, with other options available should they be needed at a later date, he knows damn well what he said and exactly why he phrased it like that . A minion spokesperson has used the word biological, allegedly on KS behalf, but his own lips have not been sullied.

This just makes KS look like an idiot.

Does he not have a view on anything outside of a legal framework?

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sit Keir told the Times, that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro

The law doesn't say that. It may be that a tall, muscular facial haired woman gets challenged that they are male going into the female toilet. But that really will be few a d far between. However, they could always have ID on them to get round the problem

Well clearly he acquired it, after having various surgeries and hormone treatment as per David Lammy 🙄

No, the judgement found that it is sometimes legal to exclude a trans man from a service for women if they would be perceived to be male.

Unless the passport and/or driving licence has a male marker on it.

That's easy enough to arrange. Just a matter of writing in with a doctor's note* and a bill in the new name.

*Gender GP flog such letters on the internet.

“In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.”

Akua Reindorf

In practice I think excluding someone because they too closely resemble the opposite sex will be a rare thing. I've known precisely one transwoman who passed, not perfectly, but well enough to be read as female unless you were looking quite closely, and probably well enough to not set off alarms in a female space. With all the others, you could clock them a mile off.

It might be more of an issue if people who want to present as the opposite sex were a bit androgynous to begin with. That doesn't seem to be very common. More often it's big hairy blokes or small petite women who think they'll pass as the opposite sex. The issue has always been much more about those who think they pass when they very much don't, or who know they don't and don't care.

I think it’s assumed that this will be more relevant to trans men, on the basis that men are more threatening to women than vice versa.

I agree that many women can spot trans men and don’t care, but even from Mumsnet it’s clear that some don’t want to share facilities with trans men, and according to the law they have that right.

It also creates uncertainty around when an individual will be refused services.

Perhaps the EHRC will provide more clarity.

I suppose it's how much of the time " sometimes " is. It isn't the problem that it s being made out to be, it's a red herring and I'm sure transmen can have a think about the best thing to do in this situation.

😂

😂 bit too honest

If I’m a shy autistic young woman who identifies as a trans man, I think the answer is possibly that I avoid using public facilities, unless they are unisex - which is fine as long as those exist.

equality law means that it isn’t just up to them to find a solution.

Exactly. They'll have to push for it like women did to stop men coming into women's spaces. I think it's being over thought though. Take a women's refuge, there will be the chance to be introduced and get to know them as the biological woman they are.

I have lots of problems with this mealy-mouthed load of twaddle. First, who can forget that he has in the past taken the view that a small minority of women can have a penis? Second, the judgement gives clarity on one thing only: that sex is biological. There are many issues of implementation still to be worked out. Third, the judgement is not a step forward. It is stating what many of us have maintained throughout: that sex is biological and always has been. Fourth, what is going on with the use of 'it's come about'. You're a barrister, for goodness sake. Be precise. There has been a judicial process with a specific outcome. Fifth, it is missing any reference to trans people and the judgement's statement about respect for them. Not very inclusive, Sir K. Sixth, what took you so long?

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

…when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman.

And the rest of the time?

Maybe Kier has had a trans dalliance and wants to pretend he didn't know if it was a real woman? Future deniability?

Seen on twix:

Would love to see public apologies not just for Rosie Duffield but for all those women punished for the most minor ‘offences’. Misgendering non crime hate incidents etc etc. Otherise known as telling the truth!

‘These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.’

I was furious listening to them in parliament yesterday. Labour were trying to take full responsibility for the ruling, saying they’d done something for women where the conservatives had failed etc.

The bloody nerve of them!

God they are so bad. Idiotic Starmer. Glad I missed it.

I don’t really mind if it makes them more likely to uphold it.

Yes, we have an election because of this here and I have no idea who to vote for now. Don't trust Labour.

There was a time when yesterday's show, cringeworthy as it was, would have been enough for me to at least shrug and move on if not outright forgive. But that window has closed. They took the piss for far too long and I'm still wary of all the transactivists and allies who are still in the Labour party, some of them in senior positions.

Five years ago The Deputy Leader signed a pledge describing WPUK and LGB Alliance as 'hate groups' and calling for 'transphobic' members to be expelled. I'm not aware that she's ever expressed regret for that and her current silence does not reassure me in the slightest. What happens if she succeeds Starmer,or if Nadia Whittome wins a ballot for a Private Members Bill?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/12/labour-leadership-row-over-support-for-trans-rights-charter

“What happens if she succeeds Starmer,or if Nadia Whittome wins a ballot for a Private Members Bill?”

Can you do that if your party expressly disagrees with the bill? (Even if just because it’s politically embarrassing?)

What would she argue? It would make logical sense to mandate some unisex service provision in public places (and people could also argue why single sex service provision is necessary and need for toilet safety re: door gaps).

But she is on a sticky wicket if she wants to argue that TWAW, now that that would involve changing the law. As per the Denton’s report, it’s difficult to make these arguments in public.