Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Reddit: "Did the Supreme Court get this wrong?"

10 replies

CassOle · 20/06/2026 16:18

Did the Supreme Court get this wrong?
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1u4yfan/did_the_supreme_court_get_this_wrong/

There are dark forces afoot... apparently.

OP posts:
CornishDaughteroftheDawn · 20/06/2026 16:23

Aw bless #sadtimes

Lots of projection going on there.

Thingybob · 20/06/2026 17:01

I'm never sure exactly what these people want.

Do they really want a persons sex for the Equality Act and SSS to be defined as both the default of the biological category observed at birth AND anyone that 'reassigns their gender' from the moment a man first puts on a dress or a woman stops shaving her legs.

If that's not their intention how do they propose the law should be changed?

singthing · 20/06/2026 17:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Igmum · 20/06/2026 18:15

Still at least now we know where all that evangelical Christian/Russian/JKR money is going now. I thought BoiledBeetle was eating less Tunnocks. Now I know why.

ElenOfTheWays · 20/06/2026 18:59

Just when you thought trans reddit couldn't get any crazier...
They've outdone themselves again.
Bravo!

I do look forward to these nutty threads. Everyone needs a good laugh now and again.

GLP are always good for a chuckle too

Hedgehogforshort · 20/06/2026 20:43

They on Reddit are a bit erm stupid and do not understand how the law works.

i also think they would complain away until everybody on the planet identified as something they are not.

KnottyAuty · 20/06/2026 20:55

CassOle · 20/06/2026 16:18

Did the Supreme Court get this wrong?
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1u4yfan/did_the_supreme_court_get_this_wrong/

There are dark forces afoot... apparently.

So the person who started the thread hasn’t read the SC judgment then?

It’s correct that the GRA uses the words “for all purposes” but there have always been exceptions. (The most interesting one is the peerages and inheritance so women cant trans their way to inheriting all the family silver!)

But alongside that theres a statement which means “any other law which would be in conflict” and this is discussed at length. Alongside the bit about lesbians not being attracted to someone with a certificate (ie having a female name on their gas bill for 2 years).

The arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking - the SC must have erred. Em no.

Rightsraptor · 21/06/2026 06:36

The arrogance of these idiots! They do a quick layman's reading of the parts of the EQA 2010 that interest them and then announce that five Supreme Court judges 'got it wrong'.

hethor · 21/06/2026 06:42

Thingybob · 20/06/2026 17:01

I'm never sure exactly what these people want.

Do they really want a persons sex for the Equality Act and SSS to be defined as both the default of the biological category observed at birth AND anyone that 'reassigns their gender' from the moment a man first puts on a dress or a woman stops shaving her legs.

If that's not their intention how do they propose the law should be changed?

I think that is exactly what they want - almost all people to be in their natural sex category and a small group of initiates who get to choose to be in the opposite sex category. Plus some people who want to be neither.

I think they're generally fairly clear about this?

fanOfBen · 21/06/2026 07:06

Rightsraptor · 21/06/2026 06:36

The arrogance of these idiots! They do a quick layman's reading of the parts of the EQA 2010 that interest them and then announce that five Supreme Court judges 'got it wrong'.

Well, you know what they say: o, to have the confidence of a mediocre man!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page