Do you think the majority are for or against the ruling?

[sadandpmsing]

Maybe people who agree with the SC ruling are still afraid to speak out in support, but all I’m seeing is people up in arms - from bio women and men to trans women and men.

Is there a possibility the law could be changed (as all SC did was clarify existing law)? I don’t think this will be the end of it.

Themselves...quite clearly. Being forced to go along with someone's fantasy is how it all started.

The vast majority agree with the ruling.

I think social media and the algorithms it uses are causing a lot of confusion, especially amongst the young. They are much more likely to be following people that agree with them and their For You pages will also be filled with these people. It becomes a weird and insular echo chamber that shuts out any dissenting views. It is super unhelpful and leads to a lot of animosity and misunderstanding.

Also to add that a lot of the women are pro this movement because they’ve somehow made the correlation that empowering trans women is empowering women and not a biological man

I’ve also found that in terms of Millennials quite a lot of the older millennial have been indoctrinated to the movement and I say this because my own parents were very set in the belief that there are only two genders as the year has gone on they have completely 180 As have my grandparents who were told by their friend that they were being anti-trans by thinking this way

A lot of it is being peer pressured to have the same belief as other people which is the way it’s always been except now rather than spiritual beliefs it’s become science beliefs / facts

I will call you what you want, but it’s not going to change my belief
in the same way, I will respect your spiritual belief, but it’s not going to change my mind

I think a lot of women who oppose the judgement have misunderstood it and think it means that women’s lives should be defined by biology (rather than simply that the meaning of the word ‘woman’ in the EA is biological woman). I also think there’s a general tendency to assume that having concerns about gender identity means you think everyone should conform to sex stereotypes, rather than the opposite. Some very confused people out there.

Just can’t work out what sex these interviewees are whatsoever

Delusional

The ruling is 88 pages long.
99% of people who are either "for" or "against" it are basing their opinion on a 1-sentence summary provided by someone who also hasn't read it.
Honestly I don't think think the noise and bluster matters too much. The law is the law, an now EVERYONE knows the dangers of not having absolute clarity in the law, so any future changes will be properly scrutinised and the full consequences and impact analysed. We won't let it get so messy again.

The BTL comments on the Guardian seem very against the ruling.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/apr/22/supreme-court-single-sex-provision-bridget-phillipson-uk-politics-latest-updates-news#comments

I find it funny that when they’re trying to define a word, they use the word they’re trying to define rather than actually defining the word

even animals are defined better than a woman

I think most people probably don't understand the ruling - it was a complex area of law, after all. But insofar as they understand the top line ("biological sex trumps imaginary gender identity"), I think most are in favour, especially going by BTL comments in the Times, Telegraph etc.

But demographics do make a difference. Two groups are supportive of gender ID: young people, and the liberal middle-classes - people who work in tv, publishing, charity sector etc. Older people, working-class people, and the type of middle-class person who works, say, in accountancy, still have functioning brains.

everyone I know is pleased with the ruling. It’s not a new law, just clarifying existing law. Any male person should not enter a female only space, even if they have a GRC. Women are allowed to have safe single sex spaces.

any woman blathering on about transwomen not bothering them….they bother Other women so please just accept that females do need single sex provision.

The whole topic has reached such levels of duress by TRAs now that I’m actually not even convinced when a non trans person weakly says they’re anti-judgement. There is enormous professional pressure on people in the sectors you mention not just to say nothing but to say something in favour of gender identity/transgender. I wonder what people think privately, and fleetingly, before they squash it down with another mental exercise in false suicide stats/be kind.

I think the focus on toilets has come from within the trans movement because realistically it’s the only area most people would have no real opinion. If they had focused on sport and changing rooms, where potential discrimination against women in women's sports categories or unwanted exposure of children and vulnerable women (abuse victims) to a trans individual who hasn’t undergone surgical reassignment, there would be little if no support from women, or men, particularly parents.

I suppose a man who looks like a man despite all efforts to identify otherwise, being allowed into the inner sanctum is that gotcha moment. Regardless of how obvious their actual sex is few women are likely to object because of the fear of confrontation. Something only a woman has experienced.

Just because we don’t object doesn’t mean we don’t recognise that they are men. But if they quietly go about the business of using the facilities I have absolutely no problem. I do wonder how many are disappointed by their first experience of women’s loos. It’s all about function rather than a social experience. Of course it’s more like an exclusive club within a club in nightclubs. In real life we just have a wee and wash our hands. We don’t stand around chatting womanly stuff, swapping lipstick or flashing our underwear. It’s actually a pretty anti social experience in a standard public toilet.

Women who have absolutely no problem will be lucky enough to be able to access the mixed sex/gender neutral ones plus the women only.

The women who can't do this and rely on the women only will also therefore not be excluded from society, nor have to participate as a prop for whatever man happens to be meeting whatever need of his in that space. It may be just emotional validation or human shield, or it may be sexual, or worse; it's in the gift of the man who walks in and all women get is to hope today isn't the day he happens to them.

Can you quantify ‘most’? Have you seen a survey?

I sincerely hope that your dd doesn’t learn the hard way why sharing spaces with men is a bad idea. Personally, as a mother I feel it my duty to arm my daughters with information that will help them avoid nasty situations with men.

One of them is to avoid mixed sex facilities where they are undressed or vulnerable because they are known to generate a far higher rate of sexual assault and voyeurism.

Sadly there are worrying numbers of men who publicise quite how happy they are to be in men’s spaces. They film, masturbate, steal used sanitary products and listen to women on the toilet. No disappointment for them - it’s the thrill of the transgression.

Yes, the judgement is 88 pages long and few read it. I need to point that out to the trans captured friend who was looking for support she didn't get but has fallen back on the argument that the judgement is too simplistic. At 88 pages? - Please.

I was impressed with how comprehensive it was, and yes I bothered myself to read it all.

in men’s spaces
I think you have a typo - women's spaces.

These aren't men who think they are in the wrong body, they are just old fashioned perverts to whom Stonewall activism has given a free pass.

They are mardy because they have been rumbled.

Gahh!! Thanks @Peregrina - total typo (or wishful thinking) on my part.

Now I think of it, do any men do those things in men’s toilets? Or is it just the women’s they like to inflict themselves on?

Yes, its based on total misunderstanding and ignorance. People have been encouraged to swallow the ideology whole, without ananlysis or question.
A total lack of critical thinking and coherence...as the Supreme Court judges discovered.

I'd say the majority are for it,but are too scared to say so,for obvious reasons.

Well, there certainly were quite a few against the ruling, but actually there were a fair few pro it.

I was particularly infuriated by one poster, who was (repeatedly) posting this section from para 217 ' A trans woman with a GRC who presents fully as a woman may feel she is more likely to prompt objections from other users if she enters the men’s changing room or other facilities than if she uses the women’s changing room or facilities. But in facing that dilemma she is in the same position as a trans woman without a GRC. Although such trans women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of the other women users,....'

He? was posting it as if, firstly, this was part of the ratio of the judgement rather than part of the explanation (i.e. he was posting it as if this is what the judges were saying someone should do, rather than (as they actually were saying) people did do it. And secondly, he missed off the very important few words at the end of the paragraph
.....

'.......the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman without a GRC is legally entitled to do so. '

I.e. everyone on both sides of the argument did not think that (the use of female facilities by a legal male) was the correct legal posistion!

We don’t need to be scared any more. Now is the time to be counted before the lunacy takes over again.

More people will become interested as the court cases are still progressing and there are cost implications.
The Scotland case for single sex loos in schools has won. In the Times:
"A judge has ordered that Scottish schools must provide single-sex lavatories for pupils after parents won a legal fight against a council which insisted on installing only gender-neutral facilities."

Lies always unravel!

The two separate nurses' cases will now be slam dunks on terms of confirming those women should never have been put in that position in the first place. There will be the additional issues to clear up around it but the core one is sorted. The interesting one will be Sarah Summers, which will benefit from clarity that a women's service cannot be mixed sex, but will also press that having lots of accessible options to match gender identities but nothing for women needing single sex provision is discrimination against women. That should have a firm impact on LA funding bids and commissioning.