The Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act should cause no confusion – the judgment is a model of clarity

[IwantToRetire]

For almost two years before this judgment, the EHRC called for the UK government and Parliament to consider redefining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act. To identify the potential implications of this change on all those affected, to debate the issue and find the best (least discriminatory) way forward.

But the unambiguous ruling of the Supreme Court has now clarified what the law is.

I beg every legislator to read the judgment in full. I regret any uncertainty among duty bearers and the public that has been fuelled by misunderstanding and distortion, particularly across social media.

The judgment is a model of clarity.

The law it sets out is effective immediately. Those with duties under the Equality Act should be following it and taking specialist legal advice where necessary.

Extracts from a longer article at https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/supreme-court-ruling-equality-act-cause-no-confusion-judgment-model-clarity

Also:

EHRC Chair Says Questioning Integrity Of Supreme Court Is "Unacceptable"
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/ehrc-chair-says-questioning-integrity-supreme-court-unacceptable

Your headline said it all, correctly. The only people arguing are those who don’t want to accept the judgement.

I had expected that the judgment would be difficult to read and complicated. I really isn’t!

Saying no to men is complicated!

Great article, thank you for the link OP.

Confusion is the weapon of choice of TRAs and their allies.
The head tilt, the intentionally furrowed brow, the concerned expression, the 'genuine' requests for a clearer explanation of clear explanations...

I'm reminded of the old joke about a philosopher being asked 'What is the meaning of life?' and replying 'Well.. it depends on what you mean by
"the"'...

Spot on.

I understood most of the 80-odd pages in the judgment with no legal training. The judges spelled it out.

It's confusing if you want it be confusing.

It's part of the coercive control tactics. Along with the undermining of reality and the accusations of causing harm for completely innocuous statements such as noticing the sky is blue.

Then making people walk on eggshells because saying something is harm but ALSO not saying anything is avoidance and so also harm (clearly shown in the Sandie Peggie case). Constant shifting sands to the point that in fact the person being targeted is pretty much always in the wrong and inherently bigoted so should just roll over and do whatever they're told even if it means being forced to get undressed in front of men who want them to (or putting children on unevidenced unethical drugs).

Also, the claiming that words don't mean what they've always meant.

The sooner the abusive nature of these tactics are recognised the better.

Lots of organisations have enabled the worst, most toxic bullies with this movement. It's no wonder productivity is in the shitter.

Until they face consequences nothing will change, though. This has been going on for many years with APPALLING and illegal safeguarding failures and yet, no accountability at all.

Those who have pushed the gender religion completely believe they can get away with breaking the law and their opinion matters more than the law.

We do need some swift examples being made. I'd like senior leadership in schools who groomed and socially transitioned children behind their parents' backs to be the first to lose their jobs.

There was a panel last night (?) with Reindorf, Daley, Cooper, Vine and Forstater (?). The recording will be available soon.

It’s worth watching to understand just how clear the ruling is.

Much of this is the misogyny has not only been excused and rationalised and normalised but made Righteous. The messaging has been relentless, it's everywhere.

Only silly, bigoted women want sex based rights (that inconvenience men)
Only saggy titted old witches complain about having to get undressed with any random man that wants to be there
Lesbians who resist the mouthfeel of lady dick should be <insert pathologically disturbed sexual violence threat and pictures of weapons here> for their stupid bigotry and homophobia
Only pearl clutching prudes want single sex health care

There has been over a decade of misogynistic indoctrination of society, it's been celebrated to hold these attitudes. Businesses got awards for shitting on women.

Of course it's now 'complicated': saying no to men, particularly from a lobby with a long history of its behaviour when displeased, is hard to do. Dealing with the behaviours and pressure is hard to do. And dealing with staff who have been indoctrinated into what is, in essence, male supremacism, is hard.

Letting women have their existing legal rights and equality of consideration and power has become something seen as a wholly unreasonable and appalling request

Confusion is the weapon of choice of TRAs and their allies.

You mean like ...

... (Checks notes)...

....how Trump does?

I wonder what the SC judges think of what's happened. Because the way institutions are behaving seems a threat to the rule of law, honestly.

If it's allowed to go unchecked it's a threat to the values our society is built on.

Panel where? What channel?

It was an in-person event at LSE.: For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers.

Look out for the video via Sex Matters. Forstater wasn’t part of the panel but was in attendance. It was chaired by Peter Ramsay and the speakers were:
Ben Cooper
Naomi Cunningham
Akua Reindorf
Sarah Vine.

ETA: I’ve just looked at MF’s X and there’s a dark but lovely photo of her thanking Ben Cooper with a framed quotation of para 35 from the judgment (the bit where the judges complimented BC for his oral and written submissions.

I have not had time to read it in full yet, but my understanding from the media is that there are two outcomes that are at odds with one another.

1. That biological males cannot use female toilets
2. That biological males could be asked to leave a male toilet if their appearamce (as a convincing female) causes alarm to males using the toilet

And vice versa

So the media was saying that this could leave a person without toilet facilities

I can kind of understand it better the other way around.. Considering that a fully transitioned biological female (short hair, facial hair perhaps, maybe more masculine features and clothing ) would be a shock to women if they entered the women's toilets.

It causes confusion because the women will call out that a man is in their toilets (when it's actually a woman who transitioned), potentially causing emotional harm to them.

And a lot of women will be too shy to call it out, as you'll potentially have people with beards in the ladies toilet..and you won't know if they're male or female.

Although the court has made an important move by clarifying definitions, I'm not sure the toilet situation will be much better.
And I can't think of a solution, other than moving to individual unisex cubicles everywhere.

I wonder this too

@ElaineParrish
So we should carry on with a situation and allow anyone into women’s spaces putting women and girls are at demonstrable risk, so that some women, who have chosen to completely alter their appearance, might not be inconvenienced?

If they really are indistinguishable from men then they could conceivably use male facilities without anyone knowing and then it is men’s problem to sort out.

Honestly, it is astounding how much angst everyone is suddenly having over transmen when we barely heard them mentioned before.

The interim guidance from the EHRC on toilets is another model of clarity (and is only 4 pages long):

www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public:

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex

• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological
woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities

• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans
people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use

• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided

• where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

[Edited to fix my typo]

This bit of misinformation has been repeatedly debunked in multiple threads now and is easily fixed by reading the judgment.

It's not a gotcha and even if it was, the judgment still stands. The GI lobby are meeting #nodebate for the first time when it's not them saying it, and they don't like it.

And it's no more unfair that some trans people will have difficult situations to navigate in the short term than that MANY women were required to navigate the exact same difficult situations and much worse. Women were expected to do this indefinitely and were bigots who should die in grease fires if they complained, without anyone worrying or caring, never mind running to set up alternative third spaces.

There seem to be a lot of people who regard actual women as some kind of superheroes who can deal effortlessly and alone with the things they cannot bear to think about other poor mortals having to deal with. <Goes back to hoovering the batcave>

@MagpiePi

I would rather take my chances with a 5ft transman with wispy facial hair than a 6 foot + male in a dress.

This has occurred to me too.

That led me to wonder how and why this ideology came about, how many countries have already got Self ID passed through their governments and how fortunate we are that the U.K. is structured in a way we’ve been able to uphold equality laws here.

There’s a big cross over of Trans Activism and those on the far left pushing full on Marxism with a vested interest in destroying our current systems so I can imagine they’d rub their hands with glee if our institutions defy the ruling. I think they need to be put in their place pretty sharpish and the media needs to do their job and report more responsibly with far less bias.

I have no answers and not enough knowledge of global politics to even start to understand how we got here in truth. But it’s not great to realise how fragile our freedoms and democracy are.

Or adding a single all purpose fully enclosed cubicle everywhere?

It is only 0.5% of the population, there should hardly be a queue.

We have to consider everyone’s needs, and it is unfortunate that no-one has been considering women’s needs for the last 10 years. Now they have woken up to women’s right to privacy, dignity and feeling safe and comfortable, new solutions will have to be found. And this will need some actual dialogue, and a realisation that you don’t get everything you want, especially when it requires violation of the boundaries of others. And yes, it will be difficult for some trans people to have to acknowledge their own bodily reality; if they can’t do this, they need therapy. Basing your whole psychological well-being on the 100% affirmation of complete strangers is not a healthy way to function.

I am tired of moving the whole world to accommodate people who are involved in their own personal role-play, have chosen to take drugs and have surgery, and expect us all to cater to their every whim so they can feel “comfortable” at all times regardless of other people’s discomfort.

I partly posted because a lot of the main stream, let alone alternative media, have not given the Baroness Falkner a voice.

And also a lot of coverage are attacks on her, some quite personal. There is currently a petition to get her sacked saying she has over interpreted the court ruling.

Added to which those women's groups who claim to be representative have all made statement starting from the position of fear that groups can no longer provide trans inclusive services.

The latest is this one from the WRC https://www.wrc.org.uk/blog/sex-as-biological-and-the-impacts-on-the-womens-sector who theoretically represent women's groups (in London or England?).

I have no idea how much funding they get but what an unprofessional statement.

It starts off as though they are having a panic attack and are running round like headless chicken as though they had no awareness that this court case has been impending for months.

And in that time could easily have looked at alternative judgements, taken legal advice and had it ready or discussed with groups.

Now, only after the the ruling has happened they are getting advice from a legal advisor.

But in the meantime say women's groups can continue to provide trans inclusive services but dont attempt to say what they are or how they would be advertised!

According to the interim EHRC:

If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

• A trans woman is a biological man
• A trans man is a biological woman

So how can groups advertise a trans inclusive service and what would they be?

"Biological women and trans women (who are biological male)"

Could they even advertise that as a service

And wouldn't a trans man also be included as a biological woman

So doesn't the interim guidance mean it is possible to have either biological women only service or mixed sex services?

Yet so many are still talking about being trans inclusive.

(Have to say I hadn't really registered that the interim guidance has said having a GRC makes no difference in terms of acessing services. So many TRAs shouting out against the ruling just talk about trans, but really is making the GRA and a GRC meaningless.)

Exactly!

Not trying to generalise but from what I’ve heard, masculine looking women are generally ok with being questioned about their presence in a female space. And in any case, you can tell within a couple of seconds, despite what the TRA’s say.

@IwantToRetire but really is making the GRA and a GRC meaningless.
It's not meaningless. For some people it's a very real and important symbol of something they have been through. It was hugely meaningful when first introduced, because gay marriage wasn't legal at the time and this allowed a same-sex-attracted trans-identifying male to marry a male partner. However, even with that less of an issue, it's still an important symbol for some people. However, it clearly just changes someone's gender, not their sex. The characteristic of gender reassignment is still protected under the Equalities Act and it is important that trans people should not be discriminated against. However, the comparator for whether a transwoman is being discriminated against is whether their treatment is less favourable than a male without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, not whether they are being treated like a biological woman.

Polls indicate beyond doubt that the public are convincingly against virtually all manifestations of gender ideology, and yet still the institutions cling on. I do hope that those at the highest reaches of all three branches of government fully comprehend the threat to democracy that this ideology is posing.