"...while we consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgement"

[notwavingbutsinking]

Getting somewhat sick of seeing this phrase being trotted out again and again.

The implications of the SC judgement is that biological males are not permitted to access spaces or services that are reserved for biological females. So if your organisation has policies that contradict this, you must now change your policies.

Why are so many organisations apparently finding this so very complicated that their best brains are scratching their heads in puzzlement over it all?

I wish that all these organisations had conducted anything like this caution, depth of consideration and due diligence before hiring the trainers, activists and other staff that led them awry in setting and writing their policies.

My feeling is that they will do it, but they'd rather wait until people aren't paying so much attention to the topic so it can be done quietly and without much fanfare. A lot of places won't want the public to be made aware that they've been treating women that badly.

Some will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming though.

Absolutely agree. It isn’t confusing and they raced to adopt policies that disadvantaged women (patriarchy anyone?). Just get on with it.

“…while we consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgement"

Translation 1:

Oh shit! How are we going to do this without our blue-haired employees/customers/clients kicking off…

Translation 2:

Fuck the terfs. We are not going to comply with those bitches…

I feel the same. I suspect most of the organisations coming out with this line have been part of Stonewall’s Diversity CHUMPions scheme, which will explain much!
The only positive I can take from this tiresome and pathetic line being troped out is it’s equivalent to a hazard symbol, particularly the toxic and corrosive substance ones!

@RethinkingLife - 100% agree - the big question for me will always be why didn't they? Why were they so flabby that they could be so easily hi-jacked by one vociferous minority.

@bubblerabbit Absolutely agree - letting others go first and then slowly being part of the pack to comply is what I imagine most of them doing to avoid the spotlight being on them

God this is so true! You’re not civil service by any chance, are you? The offers of support and hand wringing for the fragile LGBTQAI+++ at my place is epic. Support for women? Zilch.

Yep!

If it was me I think I'd be worried about getting it wrong again so would be seeking out proper legal advice before putting out a rushed policy.

I agree. It’s not actually a bad idea to put out a holding statement like this. Far better than those companies and organisations who rushed out to offer their support to TRAs.

Girlguiding have put out one of these. If the ultra woke HQ want to stay open to Transwomen they will need to change from a women only organisation to mixed like Scouts. It will probably need a whole member vote which takes a while to organise. I bet HQ is scrambling at the moment and anglea salt is marching around telling them all how complex it all is. Mind you they do other major stuff with no consulting at all so who knows what will happen. I'm watching.....

To be fair, I'm not sure that even we expected just how signifcant that ruling was, or how quickly it has up-ended the whole edifice...I even suspect that the BBC and the Guardian etc expected the judgment to go the other way, which is why they headlined it on the morning before the announcement.

Organisations are playing for time - to see if they can challenge the ruling; pretend it didn't happen; or simply get used to the idea that it did, and that it has significance and implications for them too.

I am waiting, with a coffee, for the first incident in which a woman can take such agencies to court. Since the judgment is there, the law is clear and 'we were thinking about it and pouting' isn't going to give them a case.

Any women wanting to boost their retirement fund, watch out for the discrimination and go for it, the bank's open.

To be fair you are probably right. Taking the time to ensure your response is comprehensive, properly communicated, and fully compliant with the judgement isn't a bad thing in itself.

I think it is all the faux "but this is all so complicated" that is getting right on my tits.

Came across two articles today

https://archive.ph/Lsa7v

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/03/police-trans-officers-from-strip-search-women/

This one had me fuming. I understand that it could be awkward for a male officer to strip search a tw who has acquired breasts or even had his penis and scrotum surgically shaped into a simulacrum of female genitalia and who might pass fairly well, then there's the mythical 6ft tm However, there's no excuse, none for a woman to be intimately searched by a man who claims to think he's female. Confusion around the EA was a paper thin, spiteful excuse anyway but even that has evaporated with the SC judgement.

Then there's this one

https://archive.ph/W2RFn

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/03/civil-servants-defy-official-trans-guidance/

Maya Forstater said this, civil servants, who believe the ruling was 'impossible to implement' should resign.

She's far too kind. They should be sacked.

I was saying the same to DH this evening. The NHS, the police and the civil service union all trying their hardest to avoid their legal obligation to adapt to this. It's very concerning.

I get people need time to absorb the ruling and go through all their policies and activities to ensure compliance, but it needs doing pronto and it needs to involve appropriate apologies to everyone adversely affected by the idiocy of the last decade or so. It also needs to start at the top. Starmer needs to confirm what action is being taken to ensure compliance in all government departments and agencies and then either apologise, in full, to all the people damaged by government waffling or failure to uphold the law, or resign. Same for every company/organisation/government department who bought into this nonsense. We do need to keep the pressure dialled up to max to ensure we don't have to fight this all over again. .

It's so unbelievably crazy that this has happened. My good friend of 30 years works for a trade union already mentioned and seems to believe TWAW, gets very angry in conversations about it. I know two others who work there as well and after the SC clarification, they said 'they are going after the most vulnerable.'

Ffs, someone needs to put this right. An investigation into the capture of HR departments, Stonewall, etc.