Reaction in other countries?

[DuesToTheDirt]

I'm not sure if this has been covered elsewhere - there are so many threads! - but what is the reaction in other countries to the SC ruling? I'm sure not everyone around the world is focused on women's rights in the UK, but when it has been covered in the press, what is the slant? Favourable, or do they think we're unsympathetic right-wingers?

What I've seen in the French media seems to be anywhere from neutral to critical, but that might just be the bias of the media I read. I haven't seen a lot of commentary about it, or comments under the line from French people.

I did have a guilty laugh at this, from Euronews. I've always said it's ridiculous that the phrase "human rights" is "droits de l'homme" (men's rights) in French.

But in this case, it's entirely appropriate.

"The MP Maggie Chapman said that this decision was profoundly worrying for men's rights."

😁

Oh gosh yes, how apt!

I saw an interview in Australia with the Giggle app founder (she got sued by a transwoman for making an app for women and not including biological men). It was very positive, both the app founder and interviewer.

Can you link? In NZ it has opened up a few ‘wounds’ for the totally biased MSM on this as they have always shut GC women down and followed the ‘no debate’ diktat on this. There are some whisperings from the Right and populist politicians on trying to define woman as biological in our law but it’s so much harder here because self ID is entrenched and GC views are essentially conflated with Nazism by anyone with any influence on the Left. It’s a sad state of affairs. But not unexpected in a country with some of the most dire domestic violence and child abuse statistics in the OECD and where an elderly woman was publicly beaten up to cheers by the general public at a women’s rights event. Lefty blokes, including the leader of the Labour Party are predictably falling all over themselves for the chance to publicly trash women’s concerns as long as they prominently display their pink and blue colours. But to go back to the question of the OP, the SC judgement in the UK was met with much relief and hope over here by women in the GC whisper networks and it has given some media outlets the opportunity to interview some GC women with a bit more respect and depth which has been good. Similar to the commenter from France, the overall public response has ranged from neutral to ‘aren’t we wonderfully morally and intellectually superior over here in these fair isles of Oceania that we have been able to take away single sex facilities and services from vulnerable women and women’s language in healthcare and medicalise with puberty blockers at 8x the rate of UK kids and isn’t it great that any woman who speaks up on this will probably never have paid employment again’.

Sure @GraduationDay. I'm sorry NZ is not great for women's rights or child safeguarding, it's always been presented as a lovely, sane, beautiful country from what I've seen in the media.

If the link is faulty, the title is 'Sall Grover On The UK's Legal Definition Of Woman Supreme Court Ruling'.

The media reporting on the UK SC ruling was relatively neutral in Canada, which in general is a nice surprise. Looking at the reporting it seems to be from Reuters and Associated Press rather than LGBTQ+ issues specialist journalists. It's more news reporting than any kind of commentary.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-supreme-court-equality-act-ruling-1.7511411
https://archive.ph/fNGPr (Globe and Mail reporting)
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-k-transgender-women-ruling - the National Post has had the most gender critical/sex realist journalism that I've seen in Canada, although this is a standard news report.

I haven't seen any opinion or commentary on the SC ruling, but I haven't really been looking at Canadian media on this to be fair. And Canada is more preoccupied with its election, Trump, tariffs etc. No one I know has mentioned it, but I don't bring it up either. I don't know any secret terfs in Canada so maybe it's getting lots of attention and I'm just not aware. I don't use social media so haven't seen if it's got any traction as a story on SM.

What I did notice was the newsreader for CBC radio reported the story with a tone of faux surprise and confusion, a kind of "what on earth are they doing" but still trying to sound like a neutral newsreader tone of voice, similar to journalists reporting the shock of Brexit. I did find that very irritating. And also just noticing the CBC headline has the word woman in quotes and says the SC ruling "excludes trans women's identities" so Canada is staying on brand so far even if no one is talking about the ruling much.

Here’s a depressing report from Ireland. https://x.com/WomensSpaceIre/status/1916772039542673829

Really interesting thread - thanks OP!

I wrote some updates in the Germany-thread here earlier:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5168731-protest-germanys-introduction-of-self-id?reply=143848221

but the gist is that only few GC magazines reported correctly, a left newspaper was much more calm than usual but ending the article with a twist that it is not relevant to Germany because civil administration works differently (the author did not understand the ruling, implying if you have a passport with changed gender marker all is fine). But other articles in the same newspaper (TAZ) from before the ruling were all the usual TRA things.

The main public TV station (ARD) and its daily news flagship "Tagesschau" were a bit similar to what was described very lively about Canada, the faux surprise and gentle headshake, but translated into a written text on their homepage.
The second link is a report about the protests after the judgement, but showing mostly peace & love signs instead of the threatening ones.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/grossbritannien-urteil-trans-frauen-100.html

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/grossbritannien-urteil-trans-frauen-demonstration-100.html

The support by JKR is mentioned, and the amount she contributed, but at least they also mention the overall amount, so that it is clear a lot was crowdfunded; and tacking on that there is a discussion about whether HP fans should still buy her books.

Although it's mostly factual, a lot of further information is missing and no tears shed about the try to dismantle women's rights to privacy and own spaces, and no mention of this not being "hate" to want your own space.
No further comment on how this translates to Germany, either,
Pretty lazy effort overall, and not much critical thinking is shown.

Hi Jazzy - The Platform is a NZ show, and I think it's not mainstream media.

In Australia the media has been semi-neutral to negative about the ruling. In previous years, anything GC has been portrayed almost universally in mainstream media as anti-trans, far right or nazi-adjacent. There is a slight shifting with the words 'women's group' 'campaigners' and 'gender critical' entering the narrative, alongside the usual more negative framing. (I guess they didn't want the call the UK Supreme court far right and anti-trans?). Moira Deeming's defamation win may also have influenced the media's language.

Sal Grover (of Tickle v Giggle) was interviewed on a mainstream, left leaning show for the first time, although the interviewers were clearly very unhappy about her and the ruling. The Australian Human Rights Commission have expressed disapproval and that Australia has different laws, is inclusive etc etc. I think there's been a few newspaper articles in favour of the ruling, mainly behind a paywall. If things are resolved well and settle down regarding spaces in the UK, our Labor government if re-elected will have the option of following the UKs lead (in a very very slow and tentative reverse ferret), whereas being seen to do anything remotely Trump-like would be a problem for them. Change here is very slow. For instance the Cass Review was immediately discounted as irrelevant to our much superior health system, but has simmered away and this year there have been 2 paediatric gender treatment reviews initiated (unclear the political games being played though), and a family court ruling that seemed heavily influenced by Cass. Here's our public broadcaster (ABC) take on it
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-16/uk-supreme-court-defines-woman-to-biological-sex/105185540

This one from Australia seems pretty neutral, maybe even pro the ruling www.9news.com.au/world/uk-news-supreme-court-says-definition-of-a-woman-is-based-on-biological-sex-and-excludes-transgender-people/eb77c36f-c4ba-4008-905a-0bc0516892b6

Fascinating - the "It's not relevant here" is a popular tactic in Australia too, now that a complete media blackout isn't feasible anymore.

Thanks all, some of these are suggesting that we really are "Terf Island"! Though we have had plenty of negative articles in the UK press over the years, and indeed still do, so I know it can be hard to judge the overall mood, especially when GC people and writers don't dare to speak out.

Wow. Reading this, it’s worse than I thought out there!

Yet again the UK is a pioneering beacon of common sense!

LGB Alliance
LGB Alliance are making the news in countries including Taiwan and Japan. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people worldwide are taking inspiration from the clear message from UK courts that we can meet without the opposite sex present.

https://x.com/AllianceLGB/status/1916941799211327523

I'm Australian, and I don't understand this "it's different here". Puberty blockers are puberty blockers are puberty blockers, no matter which country or border they are used in. Heroin is no less dangerous in Australia than it is in the UK. And the fact that an investigation showed in the state of Queensland (my state) children 10 to 12 were given PBs without their parents knowledge or permission shows that NO, it is NOT different here.

That's a strange take on it. So they're saying UK made the right decision but won't work in Australia?? even less logic going on there...!

Hopefully just a matter of time before the rest of the world catch up. But it really is depressing reading!

Though, didn't the US get there first with Trump?! then again they started the whole nonsense, so they really should stop it.

But it isn’t relevant anywhere other than the UK. I appreciate the debate isn’t UK specific but people seem to erroneously think that the SC ruled that trans women are not women. They didn’t. Almost the first thing the judgment said (paragraph 2) is that they were not adjudicating on the general meaning of the word women or weighing in on that debate but ruling only the definition as it was used in the EA 2010. That didn’t involve weighing up gender critical and pro-trans views to do that or the application of “common sense”; they looked at the way different provisions in the act interact and evidence of the intent at the time it was written. The SC did not somehow reveal itself as GC nor did they opine any more broadly than one act, an act that can be easily amended by Parliament should they wish to.

The practical implications are of course significant but the legal question was very narrow and not the one a lot of people seem to think was being answered.

The Supreme Court judgment said it can't stop people using the word "woman" to mean "man", "cat", "piece of toast" or "lamp post", but for the purposes of the law, the word has to be used in a meaningful way.

That's not to say the Supreme Court thinks that in all other situations trans women are women.

What they are saying is that in the only situations where it actually matters, trans women are not women.

No, they didn’t say for the purposes of “the law” they said when it is used in the EA 2010 it refers to a biological woman. Nothing more, nothing less. The EA has quite broad implications for obvious reasons but as a lawyer the widespread misunderstanding of the judgment is somewhat frustrating.

I am also a lawyer.

In what situation do you think society meaningfully distinguishes between men and women, which isn't affected by this judgment?

That’s a question and discussion of the implications (which I have said are clearly widespread) but not what the SC decided or the basis on which they decided it and whether it has any relevance to the debate outside the U.K.

The Supreme Court said for the purposes of the Equality Act, the words man and woman relate to biological sex, meaning that a trans woman is not a woman.

The Equality Act also says that the starting point is that society should not treat men and women differently unless there is a permitted reason. The permitted reasons are found...in the Equality Act.

So, outside the scope of the Equality Act, it really doesn't matter whether you are a man or a woman, does it?

I agree that the precise legal reasoning that led to this decision will not necessarily be applicable in other legal systems.

But the principle is important.

The Supreme Court decided that female people exist, both in reality and in law, and have sex based rights.

Any other country which reaches a different conclusion believes that female people don't have the right to exist in law. And they should definitely be having a debate about that.