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?

Para 265 is exactly what I said the decision was about, the EA 2010 only. The breadth of the impact does not change this. What is key is paragraph 2, right at the top:

”It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word "woman" other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination.”

As I said above, the GRA 2004 still stands and
is not just there to give trans individuals good feelings.

Yes, that's why I think it is relevant for Germany, too.

Many European countries have similar laws due to the requirement to make most of them EU compatible through the decades. There will be national differences, but a lot of laws are broadly the same, even if the processes they require and the outcomes are sometimes different in how they are executed.

Those are good points @TheKhakiQuail, that this is presented as: well, we have to report on it but we present it as outsider event and try to not think any further of the consequences.

Germany has similarly clashing laws regarding Equality and recognition of Self-ID; it is highly relevant because women groups could argue almost the same way as FWS did. Perhaps the news and media try to not bring any attention to that and that's why they weasel out of it.
Lots of focus on what TW want, no focus on which rights would be taken away (!) from women, in Germany, too.

There were cases already about a TW trying to sue their way into a women's only gym, for example. Gym owner argued she'd lose her livelihood as the other women who use it often for religious reasons would stay away. She got a rebuke from an "anti-discrimination" official with the suggestion she pay the TW compensation for hurt feelings (for which there is no basis in law in this case).
There are several examples here in FWR threads under the "Germany" search term.

I thought that some journalists have not truly understood the ruling and its implications, and gave only a superficial account. As this time they couldn't say "look what Trump did", the antidemocratic angle was not applicable, instead they framed it as "surprise" and poor TRA and "has nothing to do with Germany".

I think I haven't seen anywhere the news that the Netherlands scrapped Self-ID, either, though it's a direct neighbour-country. I guess it might have been mentioned somewhere, but I didn't come across it in my media rounds.

What happened in the UK is relevant for such take-overs of women's spaces everywhere. It is also a psychological win, to see that it's possible to stop the erosion of women's rights and encourage others to organize similar lawsuits in their countries.

"The SC was clear, for example, that previous rulings about how trans women with a GRC should be treated as women for pensions purposes from the date of their GRC still stand."

To put things in context, there are something around 8,000 people with a GRC. I have no idea how many are MtF or FtM, I suspect the majority are MtF.

Prior to 2010 there was a difference in the state pension age for men and women. This gradually changed between then and 2018 when the retirement ages for both men and women was 65.

So, yes, if a man had a GRC and was born before 1954 then he would get his pension at an earlier age up until 2018. From 2019 there was no difference in pension ages.

I was born in 1965 and my retirement age is 67. A man, either with or without a GRC, who was also born in 1965 also has a retirement age of 67.

@AgentLisbon

IANAL but I think you are missing the point.

The SC court has confirmed that the law recognises in some contexts trans women are not women.

There are no contexts where actual women are not women.

Therefore, the law clearly recognises trans women are not socially the same as women in the way that the activists who chant TWAW want it to be understood.

The law has recognised a meaningful difference exists and TW can at times be excluded based on that. That is significant.

Again, that is about impact so not really relevant. The point is the scope and principles underlying the SC judgment and the extent to which there are legal or social / moral principles that can be extrapolated outside of the EA.

Unfortunately I think you are missing the point. The fact that trans women would not agree with the verdict or the repercussions of it is neither here nor there - the SC explicitly stated that it was not adjudicating on whether they are women or not or whether the GC position is correct. They were adjudicating on what Parliament meant when it wrote the EA 2010, what interpretation is internally consistent within the act and between the Act and other legislation. You are correct that, as a
matter of law, such a distinction exists, and the practical implications are significant and welcomed by this with GC views. But it is simply inaccurate to infer that the judgment supports the GC cause directly. The SC said in terms that was not the case.

If a distinction between two things can be made, then by definition those two things have a difference. They are not exactly the same, they are not interchangeable. They are not fungible.

The SC interpretation of the EA could not be made if there were not an objective difference between trans women and women.

So while they can say the ruling doesn't validate the GC cause, just clarifies the law that currently stands, the fact this ruling was possible at all does support the GC cause.

Re "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". Technically no, and the judges were no doubt trying to be impartial, but they are also human and seemed sensible. Watching the case, from a psychological perspective think the judges came in with a "be kind" attitude, but several points astonished them, such as the meaninglessness of 'living as a woman' meaning changing some paperwork (Lord Hodge's eyebrows went through the roof and his comment suggested he suddenly realised what the first lawyer had been saying about impacting women's rights). They commented on the chilling effect for lesbians wanting female only groups. They noted the problem for pregnant trans men. And I believe they liked Ben Coopers arguments not only because they helped untangle the law, but they also took into account the rights and equality of all groups. I don't think the judges are GC, but they saw the sense in the GC argument. Compare to the judgment in the Giggle case, where the judge repeatedly talks about cis women and would not even entertain the idea of a distinction based on biology - admittedly none of the lawyers argued well in that case IMHO, so he was left to pretty much make up his own mind with little help.

I spoke to some of my local candidates and volunteers at the polling booth recently. The Labor (sic) candidate said she wasn't aware of the laws/issues I was talking about in Australia "but the UK Supreme court was right". I hadn't mentioned the UKSC.

@AgentLisbon I'm not sure why you're so insistent that the UK SC ruling isn't going to have an effect elsewhere.
It's already elicited a response from the Australian Human Rights Commission. Not surprising. You look at the section of the judgement discussing sexual orientation (paragraphs 205 to 209). The judges are giving their reasons for coming to the conclusion they did. One of their reasons for concluding that "sex" in the UK Equality Act can't possible mean "certificated sex" is that this would have the absurd consequence that a lesbian association could not exclude "legal females who are biologically male and attracted to women" (their phrasing - i.e. trans women). The Australian Human Rights Commission has already refused the Lesbian Action Group and exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act that would allow it to hold events that were open only to “lesbians born female” – that is, events that excluded trans women.
In January this year the Australian Administrative Review Tribunal upheld the decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission to not provide LAG with a licence to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, noting it would be tantamount to “endorsing overt acts of discrimination” that was contrary to the intention of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Of course our laws say different things, and that informs the very different position lesbian women find themselves in, re. free association rights. But the UK SC are giving they're reasons /why/ they believe "sex" in the EA means "biological sex". One of those reasons is that it's so absurd to consider male people lesbians that that couldn't possibly be what the law draughters (drafters?) meant. Whereas our courts are upholding that very "fact" as a point of pride.
Can you not understand that our legal bods are going to notice this? That's why our Sex Discrimination Commissioner took the time to make a public statement in response. Her response is IMO waffle and non-sequiters, but what can you expect? She still knows she has to respond, it's no small thing for an Australian court to hear that the UK Supreme Court thinks their premises / conclusions are absurd.
(Honesty compels me to admit I've copied a bit of text from this website: https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2025/02/21/1387363/three-reasons-why-australia-is-unlikely-to-follow-trumps-anti-trans-campaign
My excuse being I find this so mind-meltingly depressing I cannot find my words.
That website will also give people a picture of how utterly dire things are here for women's rights, his opinion is de rigeur in respectable society).

"the judge repeatedly talks about cis women and would not even entertain the idea of a distinction based on biology - admittedly none of the lawyers argued well in that case IMHO, so he was left to pretty much make up his own mind with little help."
That interesting, I hadn't heard this. I think one of the reasons that the uk is terf island is that some of those early to see the problem were lawyers. And pretty quickly a few barristers learned how to make the arguments using plain language, working out what would work. Plus a support wren.

I am not a lawyer but I think it's pretty widely accepted that the UK law Lords and now supreme court is influential in other common law jurisdictions, though obviously not binding. So I would hope this will be thought about, and even be cited, in Canada, Australia etc.

Well that's a load of bollocks. And this comes from Harvard?

From twitter:

FeministRoar
Seems like the Supreme Court ruling is making ripples elsewhere... In Spain women are also at their Supreme Court asking that their legal protections are upheld, and politicians are walking back their support of self id.
tribunafeminista.org/2025/04/feministas-piden-al-constitucional-que-no-avale-una-norma-que-genera-inseguridad-juridica-denuncia-parcialidad-del-ponente/

@Another2Cats But the EA 2010 impacts so many different areas of everyday life that the practical upshot of this is that, for almost all intents and purposes, transwomen are not women.

I am astonished (and delighted) at the flurry of reports of organisations which are implementing changes, or reconsidering their rules and practices, following the SC decision. For the past few years they have been treating transwomen as women, from changing rooms to sports, and any pushback was dismissed as transphobia, with individual legal challenges the only option for women to regain our rights. Now they are capitulating without even being asked!

I'm sure this is not the end of it, but I can't see that any organisation which holds out will have a leg to stand on.

I wonder actually how many organisations or leaders have been true believers, and how many have simply followed what they thought was the law or modern practice. Some of the latter may actually be glad of this ruling. It could even benefit some trans people - potential employers of a trans woman candidate now know that they can direct them to the toilets or changing rooms without a potential lawsuit from either the trans women or their female employees. (If I were the employer I'd have avoided costly legal action by employing someone else.)

Sort of: the contributions on this page all seem to come from elsewhere. The first piece is by Prof Jennifer Piscopo (Royal Holloway, Politics department) and Prof Philip Ayoub (UCL, Politics department), for example. The second piece on the page is from an associate professor (specialising in international law) at Birmingham. The third is by an associate professor in sociology at Amsterdam who's also a visiting scholar at Harvard for the current academic year. The final piece is by Dr Ian Lekus of the Council for Global Equality, a Washington-based campaign group focused on gender identity issues etc.

I think this Harvard human rights blog is doing students a disservice by collecting such similar views and not exposing them to the other side or even linking to the original judgment, unless of course this has been done previously, but I also assume this one blog is just one small aspect of what goes on at Harvard.

Piscopo/Ayoub claim that equal pay claims by trans people will be impacted, which I don't believe to be the case, but neither of them seems to be a lawyer anyway.

@transdimensional I read the first opinion - very biased - and then I realised there were others, so as I was reading through the page, I expected some balance from the women's rights angle. But no, nothing of the kind.

While it is depressing to see the doubling down in countries like Australia, I think the SC ruling will have a positive influence abroad. Firstly, because the ruling is so clear and unequivocal that, although foreign pro trans media will spin it dishonestly, they can’t dispute it openly. Secondly, because foreign politicians will see the amount of backtracking going on among UK politicians and organisations and realise they may end up in the same uncomfortable boat. Thirdly, because the GC movement abroad will take courage from what has happened here and be inspired to carry on the fight. I am sure the lawyers in other countries will already be considering the implications, including the likelihood of lawsuits from UK women who have been wrongly prosecuted, sacked and persecuted over the last 15 years and the lawyers everywhere will be watching this space.