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

Where do these women's charities intend to get the money to fund the inevitable court case, if they decide to ignore the law?

My understanding is that they can continue to provide services that include trans women, but if they do they can't describe that service as single sex or women-only.

It would be perfectly legal to provide a mixed sex service but that would mean they would have to admit men, any men, as well. Which, given the high percentage of men who are abusers rather than abused, could cause them some serious safeguarding headaches. Plus the service could only be advertised as mixed sex so I imagine most women would choose to self-exclude from it anyway.

I may be wrong, but I did read the judgement and that was my take.

I was thinking of who the TRA reminded me of and it’s those Freeman on the Land nutters. Those who try to mangle language to claim they are not liable to obey any laws they have not consented to and don’t have to pay council tax etc. I think we should treat the TRA with exactly the same respect Freeman on the land

Various places who ignore the law will buckle when they face legal action. It will take a few years to sort it out.

As of now the main resistance to the ruling is headed up by the Greens [in serious financial difficulties and being sued for sexism in cases they will lose and Joylon. Joylon's case against judgement is weak and he will fritter the money away and achieve nothing.

So right now if we keep pushing the situation looks positive. Especially as the medical case gets stronger every day.