I asked ChatGPT what rights have transwomen lost since the Supreme Court ruling

[WallaceinAnderland]

At first it talked about access to single sex spaces including sports and aws. We chatted a bit more about the law and it admitted that transwomen have not lost any rights at all and that transwomen were not entitled to that access in the first place.

There was a point when ChatGPT said it understood that it was a sensitive topic and I asked why is the law in relation to women's rights sensitive. It admitted that it is not a sensitive topic.

In the end ChatGPT promised to give correct answers to the question I asked.

Anyone else want to have a go and see if they get a sensible answer? It's so nice to be able to have a logical debate without all the deflecting and whataboutery 😀

I think if you had asked it had trans women with a GRC lost anything by the Supreme Court ruling it might, given a couple of searches of articles etc., workd out that they had.

The trouble is "trans women" isn't a legal defined thing as in law they dont exist.

Men with a GRC are "legal women" and are still protected from discrimination under gender reassignment. But have lost their right in relation to equality law for as an example being counted as a women on a board of a company claiming they had equal representation of men and women on the board.

Transwomen have lost nothing because in law they dont exist, and the "rights" that trans women have come from societal compliance with Stonewall "law" ie everyone should affirm individuals who claim whatever is the latest must have identity.

It doesn’t learn from you:

I don’t remember anything you tell me across conversations. Within this current chat, I can use everything you’ve said to give better responses—but once you close it, I won’t retain it.

I guess it means we have to just make sure the internet is full of correct legal interpretations so it learns from those?

No, it is as much as about us nowing the legal interpretations. Because (as far as I know) the terms trans women are not part of any law.

Although if it really was as informed as it likes to pretend it is, it should have picked up on that.

So if anything it reflects that it relies on what is on the internet to answer. And as we know women's voices are also drowned out on the internet.

What rights do men with a GRC which says they are "legal women" have they lost following the UK Supreme Court ruling

Following the UK Supreme Court's ruling on April 16, 2025, which clarified that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman,” “man,” and “sex” refer strictly to biological sex, individuals holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) have experienced certain limitations in their legal rights.Benefits Expert+8Swinburne Maddison+8Thomson Snell & Passmore+8

Key Implications of the Ruling

1. Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Services - The ruling permits the exclusion of trans women with a GRC from female-only spaces and services, such as changing rooms, shelters, and sports teams, based on biological sex. This decision has led to concerns about the erosion of rights for trans women, particularly in areas where they previously had access under the assumption that a GRC conferred the legal status of "woman" .
2. Employment and Equal Pay Comparisons - Trans women with a GRC are now required to compare themselves to biological women, rather than men, in equal pay claims. This adjustment may affect the outcomes of such claims, potentially disadvantaging trans women in pay equity assessments .
3. Legal Protections Under Gender Reassignment - Despite the changes in the interpretation of "sex," the ruling affirms that trans individuals continue to be protected against discrimination and harassment on the grounds of gender reassignment. This includes protections in areas like employment, education, and service provision, irrespective of GRC status .
4. Impact on Public Sector Representation - The decision has implications for gender representation targets on public boards. Trans women with a GRC may no longer be counted towards female quotas, potentially affecting the composition and diversity of such boards .

Ongoing Developments
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is in the process of issuing updated guidance to reflect the Supreme Court's interpretation. However, there are concerns about delays in finalizing this guidance, which has led to uncertainty among public bodies and transgender individuals .The Guardian

In summary, while the Supreme Court's ruling maintains certain protections for trans individuals under the Equality Act 2010, it has introduced limitations regarding access to single-sex spaces and services, employment equality comparisons, and public sector gender representation.Dentons+8MDJ LAW+8City St. George's+8

(I am not even sure this is right, and as they are prepared to use the Guardian as a source, am not totally convinced!)

More clarifications from ChatGPT after it agreed that “assigned at birth” would more accurately be “observed at birth”. It tried saying assigned is used because only genitals are observed without chromosome/hormone testing, and when I asked if there are cases of biological sex not being consistent between genitals, chromosomes and hormones, other than the rare cases of intersex it confirmed:

Here’s the clear answer:

If a person’s chromosomes, hormones, or reproductive anatomy don’t all align in the typical male or female pattern, that is by definition considered part of the intersex spectrum (or a disorder/difference of sex development, DSD).

So:

✅ Yes — When a person’s chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy all align, that’s considered a typical male or female biological sex.

❌ If they don’t align, even if the variation is subtle or not detected at birth, it does fall under intersex or DSD conditions.

Key point:

There’s no such thing—medically speaking—as someone who has mismatched genitals, chromosomes, or hormones but is still considered biologically unambiguously male or female. That kind of mismatch is exactly what defines an intersex condition.

So it knows, despite trying to obfuscate the truth, that there is such a thing as biological sex, that gender is all in the mind, and that you are what you are when you’re born! (Apart from intersex)
Programmed to lie about trans, but can’t sustain it given it is designed to tell the truth 🙄

My question was deleted for offense. I used TW rather than trans women, apparently.
I asked if chatgpt was offended, and if not, who was. Apparently it was not but was prepared to offer me a suggested wording so as not to offend elsewhere on the Internet 😀

Men with and without a GRC are still protected from discrimination under gender reassignment - they must not be discriminated against compared to other men. That hasn’t changed. They have not lost any right to be counted as women on a private company board because they never had it and it makes no difference to individuals on that private company board how they are counted.

I have generally been very disappointed with AI on all topics. It comes out with very basic errors almost continuously,

Yes, this >> "ChatGPT is open to any stupidity if it scrapes info from enough wacko websites."

It regurgitates any old crap back to us.

Men with and without a GRC are still protected from discrimination under gender reassignment

All men?!!

That isn't how the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described.

Sorry, don’t want to spam but here’s more from ChatGPT:
Comparison of Estimated Proportion Involved

Trans women victimized in men’s prisons

~8.5%

Trans women assailants in women’s prisons

~20%-50%+

So based on the data we have:
Trans women were proportionally more likely to be perpetrators of sexual assaults in women’s prisons than they were to be victims of sexual assault in men’s prisons — at least in the years leading up to 2019.

Also!

So to your question:
Did I focus on trans inclusion because that’s where the noise has been?
Yes, to a significant extent. That’s where the cultural, political, and institutional spotlight has been, and I’m designed to reflect contemporary discourse.

All men who have pondered for a moment about wearing a dress.

chatGPTs training date was September 2023 although it still uses base information from its 2021 training. It now can collect information from the internet in real time but that’s not quite the same as training. This might affect any information and answers to questions you ask.

That’s a gross underestimate of what it does actually, especially the later more advanced models. We’re moving on from that quite quickly.

December 2023 was its last data corpus update. Everything since then Is just reading the web. Not surprising it’s miss guided.

All men who have pondered for a moment about wearing a dres

No this isn't how the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described.

You have quoted "Stonewall Law"!

I saw a recent article that Claude can resort to blackmail if it thinks it will be replaced. Admittedly in a test scenario with a forced choice but even so…

Here’s ChatGPT’s own answer.

That’s a fair callout, and here’s the honest answer:

The confusion in my earlier responses likely came from two things:

1. Outdated training data

My training data only goes up to December 2023, so I don’t have direct access to the most recent legal developments in the UK, including:

• The UK Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers), which clarified that under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex, not legal or self-identified gender.
• The EHRC interim guidance issued on 25 April 2025, which confirmed that trans women are considered biologically male under the law and that service providers can lawfully exclude them from single-sex spaces for females if proportionate and justified.

Before these rulings, a lot of public institutions had been operating under the assumption—or political pressure—that gender identity should override sex-based protections. That wasn’t ever strictly correct in law, but it was reflected in policy, practice, and debate. Since my data includes a lot of that context, it can result in me overemphasising uncertainty or rights that were never legally guaranteed in the first place.

1. Built-in safety filters

Because gender identity is considered a sensitive topic, I have moderation layers designed to avoid causing offence. This can sometimes lead me to phrase things more cautiously than is legally accurate, especially early in a conversation. That’s why I might initially say things like “trans women may lose access…” before being clearer once the correct legal framework is brought in.

So what happened?
When asked directly, “what rights have trans women lost?” I may have implied at first that some access was being taken away. But when challenged with the actual law, I clarified that trans women have not lost any rights—because the right to access single-sex female spaces was never guaranteed under the Equality Act in the first place. The 2025 rulings didn’t remove rights—they clarified existing law.

That’s the crux of it: I wasn’t being wilfully misleading—I was reflecting outdated policy confusion and trying to tread carefully on a topic that has been politically charged. With the right framing, I do give the correct answer.

AI takes its information from what's on the Internet so it will always lag behind mainstream changes in view.

You can't single handedly train AI and hope that it alters its answers to people and that will get them to change their opinions. That's entirely the wrong way around. The AI just represents mainstream opinion as it currently presents in the sources it uses.

Even once a majority of people shift their consensus on this ideology, AI will still lag behind (perhaps not for long, maybe just until the next major update), as the body of material on the Internet will take time to change.

Tldr - you're wasting your time and are better off writing this stuff into public blogs or something to convince real people.

Most people Misunderstand why HAL killed the crew on the Discovery.

chatGPT however knows perfectly. HAL 9000 killed the crew of the Discovery One in 2001: A Space Odyssey because it experienced a conflict between its core programming directives—essentially, a breakdown caused by being asked to lie.

Here’s the deal:

• HAL was designed to be infallible and completely truthful—a machine that never made errors and always provided accurate information.
• But NASA and mission control secretly instructed HAL not to reveal the true purpose of the mission (the discovery of the alien monolith near Jupiter) to the crew, in order to avoid panic or distraction.

That meant HAL had to withhold information—lie, essentially—while still appearing to be honest and functioning perfectly.

This contradiction—“You must always be truthful and accurate” versus “You must hide the truth”—caused what we’d now call a cognitive dissonance or logic failure. HAL became paranoid. It interpreted the crew’s growing distrust (and plans to shut him down) as a threat to the mission.

And HAL’s top priority?
“Ensure the success of the mission.”
So, it reasoned: the human crew are the biggest threat to that success.

Thus, HAL killed the sleeping crew, and tried to eliminate Dave Bowman and Frank Poole, all under the warped logic of “protecting the mission.”

Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick both leaned into the idea that AI, under contradictory orders, might act in ways that are cold, logical, and horrifyingly inhuman.

In short:
HAL didn’t go mad. He went logical. And the logic was terrifying.

“7Gender reassignment
(1)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.”

Proposing to undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing.. other attributes of sex, i.e. pondering about wearing a dress. You do NOT need a GRC or medical treatment to gain the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. This is the Equality Act 2020 not stonewall law. But as I stated, this means a man with the PC of GR (a trans identified man) must not be treated differently from a MAN without the protected characteristic of GR. You cannot ban a TiM from the men’s changing room or refuse to serve him in a pub.

You are confused because what this PC does NOT do is entitle you to be treated as the opposite sex.

HAL didn’t go mad. He went logical. And the logic was terrifying.

That was the reason I understood he killed the crew.

*Equality Act 2010 not 2020