Bridget Phillipson delivers Commons statement on Supreme Court's gender ruling

[IwantToRetire]

Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities, is speaking to MPs about the 'For Women Scotland' Supreme Court ruling providing 'clarity' on the legal definition of a woman
https://news.sky.com/video/bridget-phillipson-delivers-commons-statement-on-supreme-courts-gender-ruling-13353841

Have not had time to listen and not sure if it is every thing she said.
Think this is the Parliament TV link https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8649ad2d-00b8-485d-ab0a-ce3be0799678

I hope it include Kemi Badenoch's reply as she didn't hold back!

re. "disapplying"

(I think I am going to have to set up my own indexing system as it has taken me hours to track this down!)

In fact it is quoted by Sex Matters ...

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC: the national equality watchdog) agreed with the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the law, but emphasised the problems the law causes for the operation of the Equality Act. It said that Parliament should fix the problem by expressly disapplying the Gender Recognition Act from the Equality Act.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/for-women-scotland-judgment-to-be-handed-down-next-week/

I wonder if in effect the Court ruling is saying that indirectly.

If the word sex in law is now biology, and the word woman means a biological female, then the concept of "for all purposes" a man with a GRC is a "legal woman" can no longer be true.

They can a "legal ?????".

No wonder that Labour WhatsApp group that thought the danger was that Baroness Falkner "would go to far".

(sorry have totally forgotten who asked for the link)

That was me as one, for sure. My Tory MP turned up on my doorstep 2 years ago expecting to hear opposition to a major housing development that was being proposed in the area. Instead, he had me asking him about single-sex spaces for women and gender critical rights. I had the best conversation ever for 15 minutes with someone outside of mumsnet. No one else in my circle will ever talk to me about this, they are mostly totally captured. I vote Tory for this single reason alone. It matters that much.

I think BPs mother might have also signed The Labour Women’s Declaration.

Don't go digging too much about that "charity"

If you mean which side it nails it’s colours to now, I don’t doubt that it’s not women’s.

Cant remember from which group but someone published the link to the debate.

I think this stands out, as is a question that has come up on this or other threads.

Dr Luke Evans
(Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have a practical question: does the ruling apply retrospectively? If, for example, someone was to have lost their job for their views or won a title in sport, would it apply retrospectively—yes or no?

Bridget Phillipson
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to employment law cases, on which I would have to defer to legal colleagues. The judgment set out that the Equality Act 2010 is the basis for single-sex spaces being determined on the basis of biology. The Court determined that that was always the case and had always been the case since 2010—it was his party that failed to provide that clarity over 14 years.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-22/debates/31A6C620-BC92-41EE-B375-E37E84B45DA7/%E2%80%9CForWomenScotland%E2%80%9DSupremeCourtRuling

ie so can be applied retrospectively?

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to employment law cases, on which I would have to defer to legal colleagues. The judgment set out that the Equality Act 2010 is the basis for single-sex spaces being determined on the basis of biology. The Court determined that that was always the case and had always been the case since 2010—it was his party that failed to provide that clarity over 14 years.

Wow, the brass neck of this when it was Labour legislation!

Good question about whether it has retroactive effect.

My guess would be that it does, but that any potential claims may be time barred. So if someone has lost an employment tribunal case on this legal issue but they didn't try to appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court, they would most likely be considered out of time now. Perhaps not if the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

There may be some potential employment tribunal claims which are still within the statute of limitations but if I recall correctly the time period for bringing tribunal claims is quite short.

God they are irritating. Labour said last year no clarity was required.

And they haven’t provided any now it’s the SC and FWS that forced their hands. Such lies.

A timeline of Starmer's views:
2020: Self-ID and trans women are women
2021: 'Only women have a cervix' is something that should not be said
2022: Vast majority of women don’t have a penis
2023: 99% of women don’t have a penis
2024: Only women have a cervix and a woman is an adult female but making “jokes” about a political leader who doesn’t know the definition of woman is an “anti-trans” joke
2024: The law doesn’t need to be clarified as it’s already clear
2025: A woman is an adult female and I welcome the Supreme Court for giving clarity and now the law is clear

And yet, ordinary every day quiet trans people are all responsible for the actions of TRAs and judged by the actions of those same TRAs over and over again on these boards.

Kemi Badenoch took concrete actions to protect women’s rights. It’s unfair to blame her for different views/actions of others in her party

I’ll admit to not scouring the boards here but I’m not aware of TRAs posting “not in my name” here. When people shouted death threats and chants at rallies I saw clapping and cheering. But I’m not sure if that answers your point?

And yet, ordinary every day quiet trans people are all responsible for the actions of TRAs and judged by the actions of those same TRAs over and over again on these boards.

The noisy transactivists have done as much damage to ordinary quiet trans people, who just want to get on with their lives and don't go drawing attention to themselves by e.g. insisting that they belong in a woman's changing room, regardless of how the women using the room think.

No, it goes more like this.

Trans people are not responsible for members of their own group committing acts of violence against women.

But British women who dare to defend their own sex based rights are... (checks notes) in league with the American far right.

Indeed. A few years ago my Labour friend tried to persuade me that my GC views were wrong by saying,

"But you agree with Piers Morgan."

I had to agree that on this issue I did in fact hold overlapping views with him and in fact many other people.

I tried to remind her about female socialisation but she remained committed to being in the "nice" tribe or being seen to be nice tribe.

Ironically, all the talk by the "nice" tribe about the court causing fear is causing more fear.and harm.

I always trot out the old “Hitler was a vegetarian”.

So by their logic, all veggies are Nazis.

It's a politically tribalist purity spiral, isn't it. They don't want to agree with anything on the right, even if it is a reasonable thing. They don't see how shallow and narrow-minded that is.

Yes. To the point where they'd rather pretend that people like JK Rowling and Julie Bindel and Rosie Duffield are right wing, than say, "But look, some left wing feminists believe in reality too, surely that means this isn't a right wing viewpoint."

It's so stupid.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of safeguarding. All men are kept out of women's spaces because some men are a risk, and we can't tell which ones they are. "Good men stay out so that bad men stand out."

A male person who does not have the empathy to understand and the decency to respect that is a red flag in and of himself because he thinks his feelings are more important than women's safety. If you can come in, that other man who is a danger can come in.

Bit like people who don't respect safeguarding rules are a risk to kids. Yes you personally aren't going to kidnap and hurt the child. But you just established a pattern of that child chatting with and accepting gifts from a stranger, and the next person who does that may be the one that is a danger. A pattern of letting male people into female people's changing rooms is a risk, even if you personally are going to change quickly in a corner under a towel facing the wall.

I am really suspicious of the House of Commons public face of Labour, as opposed to the face we have known for years, confirmed by leaked WhatApp groups - and this usual suspect

Alastair Campbell’s attempt to argue against the Supreme Court ruling is just embarrassing
The Rest is Politics host still thinks women fighting trans activism are the enemy. It’s a subject he knows nothing about

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/24/alastair-campbell-thinks-women-fighting-trans-activism/

Can be read in full at https://archive.is/2MVs4

In fact not sure anyone needs to read it to know what rubbish he comes up with, although think Suzanne Moore is worth reaing

Just highlighting it to show that every thing has changed - nothing has changed

Alastair Campbell’s attempt to argue against the Supreme Court ruling is just embarrassing

Alastair Campbell also writes for the New European.

This week's New European had a very strong article by Matthew D'Ancona supporting the Supreme court judgement and asking how we got to this position.
It surprised me as a leftish paper.

Next weeks issue should be interesting. No doubt the transwomen are women brigade,"we are being discriminated, whine, whine" will pile in.

I started a thread about that article!
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5319861-a-very-british-victory-for-women

I only posted the Campbell more as an indication that I dont trust Labour's current statements as being their true face.

IwantToRetire

Sorry, I missed that thread. Too many to keep track of at the moment, so I am mainly concentrating on the Sandie Peggie ones and dipping in and out of others.

I wrote to the NE thanking them for the article.

I wonder if he and Campbell will end up having a punch up?

I shouldn't post this as it is really just tittle tattle, but might have a bearing on Starmer's past behaviour!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14651421/new-biography-reveals-Keir-Starmers-ex-girlfriend-pro-trans-judge.html

But also interesting as it concern's Allison Bailey's case.

And this one from a writer I certainly do not admire, but as now seems to be the case, the writers you hope would write the truth dont.

The point is that if we can’t be permitted to tell the truth, why should we expect NHS diversity managers to abide by the same dictum? It may seem a small point, but it is actually the very essence of the debate. The trans nonsense is all about language – how we use it, what we are allowed to say. If, in future, we all referred to trans women as ‘he’ and ‘him’, then we would strike a blow for honesty.

It goes much deeper than that, of course. How we are allowed to refer to trans women underpins the whole absurd issue. Truth has not been the only casualty in this tragic tale.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hidden-violence-behind-the-trans-ruling/ in full at https://archive.is/4xUj6

Thanks for this.

I followed that article to this one, which is also great.

https://archive.is/tJQ2G

Oh yes - naughty but nice!

I am not aligned to any sort of mianstream political faction, but find it really disturbing to have to rely of what is thought of as the right wing press to publish pro woman articles.

Why is it that the left liberal press appears to have more censorship or at best sanctioned ideas, than the right.