Supreme Court ruling sounded simple. Then the resistance started

[RoyalCorgi]

This is in the Sunday Times - it's an in-depth look at the organisations that have been bothered or bewildered by the Supreme Court ruling. Though it seems quite straightforward to most of us.

thetimes.com/article/e825cf57-f7c8-47c1-b44c-d594d2c92cd1?shareToken=90fe67c04673c5313a84bb5a956c2871

They don't like being told no
Men don't like having "the problem" punted back at them

Are we still able to take things to the European court of human rights? Even if we are the law still needs to be adhered to in the meantime right?

It will die down now the law is clear.

It turns out that women's rights apparently need to be destroyed in law, because some men find them upsetting, and it might be a bit expensive and time consuming.

Get a bloody grip Starmer, ffs.

96% of the Times reader who voted support the SC decision according to the poll. That number would probably be smaller in the Guardian or similar but still, I think this is quite a good indication how most people feel about this.

I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The unhinged rage of TRA being told no has been something to behold. I’m certain they will be mounting a campaign of civil disobedience with a strap line along the lines of #youcantstopus or something

of course as always they underestimate the will of women. They keep saying - that we’ll have to target individual businesses and complain. Do they really think that women who have spent the last years taking institutions and businesses to court, are going to be put off by having to write complaint letter’s especially now it’s been confirmed the law is on our side?

It's an astonishing turnaround.

TRAs are lamenting being treated in exactly the same way they tried to treat women. Bemoaning that they have no backing in law or government, no money to fight their cause and no one cares about them.

Get over it. You caused this mess in the first place, you had the money and support of every institution in the country to get your needs met. That wasn't good enough was it. You didn't want your own as well as us, you had to take from us. And you did it in the most violent, threatening way. So much so that many of the people who were afraid to speak out and stand up for women are still scared to say publicly what they really think.

But the law is openly fully behind us now and people are slowing and tentatively testing the waters and starting to speak out. There are a lot of casualties, families ripped apart, livelihoods lost and unforgivable public attacks but hopefully the remaining battles will now just be skirmishes and eventually settle down into a new peace. The judge was right, neither side has won. But we were only fighting to maintain our rights, not take from anyone else.

Andy Burnham firmly sitting on the fence. Idiot.
https://x.com/FFS_WhatNow/status/1916514098616938949?t=jik3pwkiiXVaVNiRalB7rA&s=19

I don't understand why they are all so shocked. This case has been going through the courts for five years and there was nothing in the judgment that was not in the arguments from FWS and their interveners. Did they just not pay attention? Given the rate at which women have been winning cases i'd have expected them to be a bit more on the ball with this one and to have been prepared for what the judgment would mean either way.

I'm almost in favour of this going to the European court of human rights... to be won again. Eventually.

It is so discriminatory to advocate to not have any place reserved only for the group of people born female.

Europe is captured through individual states. The ripple effect of them acknowledging women as a sex class will need popcorn and lots of head pats.

TRAs will shoot themselves in the foot if any of the judiciary in Europe are forced to consider the question of what a woman is. I.e. not what a transwoman is, just if females can meet without males present.

I so hope this is true. I don’t think it is though.

They just assumed it was going to go in their favour.

Goodwin v UK (2002, ECHR) gets bandied about a lot. Anyone know how applicable this is to the SC ruling?

There'll be an extinction burst.

Don't panic. Do hold steady.

I don't understand why they are all so shocked.

I don't understand why they are complaining that no evidence was submitted from the trans community. Surely that is the fault of the Scottish Government who were representing the trans community but obviously chose not to include those groups, presumably because they did not think it would help their case.

That's an own goal. Take it up with the Scottish Government lawyers.

Both the Scottish Government AND AMNESTY were representing transpeople. Against THREE women.

The reason they lost is not because they weren't represented but because they were wrong.

Archived: https://archive.fo/LJOEU

The TRAs are purposely muddying the water and inventing this supposed confusion. The media isn't helping women either.

Trans organisations such as Stonewall could have applied to be heard but didn't bother. They saw case involving the SG and Amnesty against a small charity run by middle aged women and thought they could not lose. Breath taking arrogance but we knew that already.

Goodwin was about marriage. It also covered pensions.

it said nothing on single sex spaces or compelled speech.

they won’t be be able to use it to challenge this ruling.

If they take it to the ECHR and win, all that will happen is that Reform will take us out of the ECHR citing stuff about European Judges and sovereignty and we'll end up poorer, closer aligned with the US, with less healthcare and worse food standards.

If they take it to the ECHR and lose, all that will happen is more mantrums and more demands. But no official campaign to remove the rights of women because these twits don't actually understand how law is made nor how the courts work.

Election strategists know this subject is utterly toxic unless you are the green party who are only likely to win seats in the areas of the country with a disproportionate level of battshittery appreciation. Where applicable they are more likely to use Trumpian tactics of 'bothsiding' and then denying and end up being caught out by this as they aren't any good at it and are trying to appeal to a public who have had enough of this type of doublespeak.

Re Goodwin, I saw this on TwiX this morning:

https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1916519030279594463?s=46

Unsurprisingly, it’s not the gotcha the TRA crowd seem to think it is.

Thanks for this. I follow Peter Daly on LinkedIn and he is very knowledgeable on this area of law.

Thank you, v interesting read.

Apparently domestic violence shelters imagine they are going to be able to keep admitting trans women, despite the Supreme Court ruling explicitly stating that they can't:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/28/domestic-violence-shelters-defy-trans-court-ruling/

Here's an archive of that link with a share token: https://archive.fo/2rlz7

Where do these places get their funding? How is that going to work if they can't demonstrate they are legally compliant?