Just one article to convince someone that it's not just about sport?

[Emilesgran]

Hi all,
I normally come here to learn rather than to post because there are so many brilliant women who just "get" everything that I feel I don't have much to contribute. Plus lack of time TBH.

Anyway, my DS who's in his late 20s and living abroad so we don't sit down regularly to talk, has been holding back on the whole trans thing. I've felt for ages that he didn't agree with me but was being "careful" not to say the wrong thing, and I didn't want to push it.

So now, at last, after the SC ruling, he finally said something on Whatsapp about "the strange SC judgment". I asked him "why strange", and he replied with quite a detailed post:
-
Well I'm not as engaged as you are. But the judgement is ham-fisted, reads like a biased SCOTUS opinion and lowers my opinion of UK Supreme Court. Extract:
"The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation."

That's just a dereliction of duty by the court, and will cause problems as it enforces gender stereotypes on the entire population.

And then he concluded: The sports issue is a minor aspect that needed correcting. That's sorted, but at the cost of cruelty to another section of the population who would never dream of picking up a tennis racquet competitively - nor assault children in bathrooms.
---
Italics are mine - to show his words, bolding is his.

I was going to reply, but I don't want to get this wrong. Nor end up with a to-and-fro that will just lead to him disengaging again. I feel like this is a chance to win him over - if I can get it right.

I also know he won't read lots of different articles about it - he's not concerned enough. But if someone has an idea of just one article - not one with lots of horrifying anecdotes about abusers, that's not his style, but rather something analytical that will explain why it's a woman's rights issue, rather than trans rights, or - well I don't know, something else - that'd be fantastic.

I can respond to some of his points, that it's not just about competitive sports for instance, because girls only get to a competitive level by coming up through the ranks of school and club sports, and that women need to play more sports generally anyway. But like I say, I'd really like a single authoritative article about why this is not about dislike for transgender but about erasing women. He already knows about JK Rowling, of course, so it needs to be in a bit more depth than that.

I'm sure if I took the time to search here, I'd find something, but apart from the fact that it's a daunting task, I'd really like some advice on how to go about it talking to him about it as well.

He also has a 13 year old cousin who's currently in the throes of thinking she might be trans or NB, so OTOH her obvious unhappiness and confusion might help my argument, but I don't want to sound like I'm rejecting her either. Because I'm not.

TIA

The reason I wrote the above post is because you will not change her mind with facts.

So make her think about the solution

Sharon Davies on pm last night on R4 said that banning Twomen from football etc was for insurance reasons. I guess if someone is injured playing football and it is by someone now deemed the male sex the insurance payments ( I’ve no idea about sports law) would be v high.
So it could be said it’s not nasty women stopping Twomen from playing it’s the Law!

I don’t think I’m going to argue with anyone on this. Hopefully the worst of the moaning and criticism will die away.
I would though write to public bodies if unhappy with their comments /publications.

The Marty McFly Principle.

For any thing to be workable in law, you have to be able to define what you mean.

For the purposes of the Equality Act, this means who has what protected characteristic.

Key to this is what those characteristics are: these are age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, and religion or belief.

The actual wording on gender reassignment is - A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Now how do we know who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if sex doesn't mean biological sex and is just a fuzzy concept based on how people feel (note because it's about proposing to undergo as well as has gone through, we can't refer to a GRC here). Thus if we make sex a fuzzy indefinable thing or erase it completely any woman who declare herself a transwoman or any man could declare themselves a transman and the law couldn't argue differently as you don't have the necessary words to define them as not.

Thus sex can ONLY be biological sex otherwise you do a Marty McFly and erase the very existence of transpeople by your own actions of deleting sex - because if you erase sex, you remove the ability to defend trans rights.

That's the paradox. Trans people rely of the observation of sex for their rights. They can not pick and choose where sex is relevant and where it is not if we are acting in a way which treats everyone equally and impartially. Sex has to be based on biological sex. It's impossible in law for it to be an indefinable concept like gender without reference to sex in order to PROTECT transpeople!

This sex MUST mean biological sex. Because the Act itself doesn't reference anything different in its definitions.

In theory it COULD have made a distinction here and added definitions about legal and biological sex to certain points. But it didn't. It actually lumps people with a formal recognition which is completed TOGETHER with those who are still going through the process. Therefore you have to default to how you can identify those who don't have a certificate as your common definition point. (If the law had been explicit and said on awarding of a certificate only then you could identify them in this way but because it doesn't you HAVE to make reference to sex not a certificate).

And the Supreme Court can't rewrite the law. They can only go to the letter of the law.

When you understand the Marty McFly principle you understand that the Supreme Court had no other option but to rule the way it did. Otherwise it makes no sense and those undergoing / who have gender reassignment, are homosexual or have a sex (either sex!) lose all ability to protect themselves in law because they can't distinguish themselves from other humans in law!!!

This is ALL you need to know about the ruling. It's completely neutral. It protects literally everyone. Otherwise everyone loses rights!

It's that bonkers and that misrepresented.

Right I need another thing now: he's gone off on a tangent that the SC should have defined male/female or man/woman, and that they therefore have failed in their duty to fully define the terms.

I said he's confusing US and UK supreme courts (I could be wrong in this! 😳) and that because parliament is supreme, unlike in the US (checks and balances[ the UK SC can ONLY find what the law says, not redefine it according to a new understanding of words.

I think I remember that the SC has sometimes found that a law says a thing but that this is unsatisfactory, and asks parliament to reconsider or deal with it. AM I wrong in that?

(Maybe this is a massive stretch to ask!! But if anyone knows of an example of a judgment, about anything, where the UK SC has told parliament they needed to relegislate something (am I wrong to think that happens??) that would be great.

Alternatively, how to get off this pointless line of discussion and back to the real questions. 😡

Alternatively you define and codify gender stereotypes into law as definitions.

'people who wear dresses'
'people who care for children's
'people who wear high heels and dresses'

Good luck with that as an idea is all I can say.

Oh I think it's this, exactly! I've bookmarked your post to try to condense it for him. I'm afraid of him bowing out and saying he can't be bothered if I do too much at once.

This won't be overly helpful to you I suspect, OP, but his comment about enforcing gender stereotypes on the entire population is topsy-turvy, as all the batshit trans ideology is. The SC judgment is about biology and sex differences, not who wears the skirts and who wears the trousers. Can't he see that?

I think as sport is visible and men care about it, they can see TW in women’s sport is wrong. They don’t “see” TW in female prisons/rape centres/changing rooms and they don’t understand the fear.

Ask him if any girls he knows alter their behaviour because of the fear or assault/rape/male violence. Ask him why he thinks that fear stops if a TW ids as a woman. Ask him if he is aware that many TW are sexually interested in women, not men. Ask him if he thinks male pattern violence stops once a TW ids as a woman.

If you explain that if you let in some men you have to legally let ALL men in? Otherwise you have a 2 tier system where some men have extra "rights".

I think we need to push it back onto the trans community to come up with answers such as they agree only men who have had full surgery and have lived as a woman for 5 years full time can use female spaces if they always carry a card. I mean, I doubt many of them will do that because they just want to use it to access female spaces but it at least has a bar they are willing to negotiate from. I think a lot of trans supportive people think they have all had surgery rather than are men who just dress up when they want to try to see women naked in their spare time.

That's a really good point about medical emergencies etc.

He's definitely missing understanding the role of the courts. Possibly because Americans are sticking their oar in and it's different between the UK and US.

In the US judges can rule based on politics; they are politicised and appointed by political parties.

In the UK, impartiality is sacrisant. They can only rule on what is presented before them on the balance of probabilities and definitions laid out in law. They are non political.

Politicians write the law.

So if there is a problem with a ruling, it should fall back to politicians to resolve rather than because the judges have been biased/unfair etc etc.

This is where the issue now is so problematic. The activists ultimately know that politically they haven't got a leg to stand on because their position is so extreme and the public don't agree so politicians will not rewrite the law in the way that they want. So it's easier to hurl abuse at the judges because they know the game is over.

Certain activists knew from the beginning they could only get what they wanted by flying everything under the radar. The problem came when it was no long under the radar and too many people started claiming transgender rights thus undermining other rights. Basically they got caught out taking the piss and not doing things by public consent. This is all documented and on record so it's undeniable too.

Having just read the Helen Lewis Atlantic piece linked above- I think something like this with an overview of the ruling- from moderate journalists and from left wing publications- that clarify the clash of rights being addressed are very helpful in this situation.
This one from the Guardian is good for that too:
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2025.04.18-065341/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2025.04.18-065341/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us

Good luck OP. Its so hard, I know. Have had similar with my own son (19) - but he is pretty willing to discuss and look at info I send- especially when I've heard him out first.
I keep having to remember it's the water they swim in- and so am very grateful for any opening to different sharing perspectives.
For my son- an interest in history has helped!

I think a lot of the problem is about how so many people don't understand how the law (or civil society as a whole actually works).

Trump is making the same mistake over tariffs. He thinks it's like magic without understanding all the other functionality of trade deals and understanding.

Brexit and supply chains follows a similar pattern. It's all about functionality versus idealism.

You cant operate on ideals because practicalities get in the way. The Bastards.

This is brilliant!

Thanks. That Guardian link is broken though - I'll have a look to see if I can find it myself but if you're around, you might be faster than me!

Right I need another thing now: he's gone off on a tangent that the SC should have defined male/female or man/woman, and that they therefore have failed in their duty to fully define the terms.

The judges were clear that the words were to be used and understood with their 'ordinary meanings', that laws must be written such that the ordinary person can easily understand what they mean and how to abide by them.

The 'ordinary meanings' of the terms man, woman, male, female are clear to everyone who isn't pretending it's all very complicated, sex is a spectrum, what about DSDs what about hijra etc etc. The words in the judgement refer to biological sex. Maybe he should actually read the judgement because it's all in there.

This?
The sex offenders who commit crimes as men before transitioning into women: The faces of dangerous crooks who 'switched gender' when faced with the prospect of prison | Daily Mail Online

Please don’t fight with your son over this. Just nod and move on. The media is primed to create division between friends and families

Honestly I find it horrifying that so many men draw the line at sport but are perfectly OK with Katie Dolatowski in women's toilets, Karen White in a women's prison and female rape survivors having no single sex support.

The only women they can bring themselves to empathise with are the wholesome, clean cut ones. Not the really vulnerable, marginalised ones.

Ach! I have it saved as archive and can't get the original up myself either!
So sorry.
Might be able to get it via Google search from link title.

This and also ask him to imagine if a woman was brutally raped by a man who pretended to be a woman. Ask him if he thinks it would be right to expect that victim of a brutal rape to have to sit in a group therapy session with a trans woman present? Or any man for that matter? If he seriously can't see the huge problem with that then I don't see how you could change his view

The problem is partisianship.

If you can highlight just how impartial the Supreme Court Ruling is, and just how they had NO CHOICE but to rule the way they did, other things start falling into place because you'd have to question why the numpties are framing things in a partisan way.

one sentence to ask him. Why are you putting mens wants above my rights? Sex really is binary, I am female, you are male. Males do not have a right to impinge on the rights of females.

The one question is:

How do you define and protect the rights of anyone who has undergone or undergoing gender reassignment if you can't identify them using the word sex as a reference point?

Why? Because however you cut it, sex and concepts of gender are not the same thing.

The only universal thing they have in common with gender reassignment is they identify as the sex opposite to the one they are born. If you can't see the sex they were born, you can't say anything about transition. Privacy doesn't matter in law if you are trying to defend yourself on the basis of your believed identity being opposite to the sex you were born. You are relying on your sex as part of your protection. Its crucial.

You can't use a certificate because the law speficies it also includes people who are yet to get a certificate or don't want to formally get one. Thus the only definition you have MUST have biological sex because no other one is available.

You have to use sex as a universal concept unless you have a robustly defined alternative, which the Equality Act does not have.

You can't chop and change what you define sex as, when it suits your needs or wants without these clear definitions written into law.