The ruling clearly discriminates against trans people who are protected under Equality Act 2010. Its not a 'victory' it's created an insoluble contradiction. Nice one( to the deeply unpleasant people who forced the ruling)
Nope.
He judged purely on what the definition of 'woman' was in law. How that impacts, legally, on the protected characteristic of transgender was not in his remit
You didn't listen then. He spoke specifically about trans people and existing protections under EA in his announcement of the verdict. I'm not talking about the legal action itself. Have another look.
Saying 'trans people are protected too' doesnt address the point or TBH show any awareness of the implications of transgender being a protected characteristic.
I think this will become clearer as the reality of the judgement unfolds
It's all within the Act. Don't argue with me please, refer yourself to that. The definition of sex is now clear. 'Transitioning' is a legal fiction, but it does indeed have a PC with protection against discrimination on that basis. With rights overlapping, this had to be clarified.
Sex evolved to enable reproduction - it has no other purpose. Patriarchy doesn't justify itself - it doesn't even acknowledge itself. Patriarchy is all about power.
Because if you go with a GRC definition, you end up with employers being able to fire trans men for breastfeeding. It's best to define the protected characteristic so it's aligned to the basis on which people are discriminated against.
Are any journalists bothering to ask what happens to the estimated 1.5% of the population that's intersex, who've been essentially erased as casualties of this?
The amount of time, money and energy used on this is disgraceful.
The biggest issue women are facing is the scandalous trial and conviction rates for rape. Imagine if they'd put all that energy into affecting that rather than who sits on what vanity awards committee.
Rape is overwhelmingly a male crime, by numbers and, in UK law, by definition. Before this decision, a woman in Scotland traumatized by rape had no right to request a female counselor or therapy group. Do you honestly not see the cruelty in that?
But *why* won't you clearly state your definitive black or white opinion about something that isn't true, Emily? Do you hate trans people & want them to die, is that why? 🙄
I think it's unfair to put the law in that position. I think the problem is that trans-women (and men) need to have laws that apply directly to them.
E.g. I can see the argument that maternity leave doesn't apply to trans women, however there should be a trans equivalent for a maternal carer.
The problem with this judgement is that all it really does is deny trans women access to rape support services. It doesn't protect anyone, and didn't consult trans people or victims of sexual violence, it predominantly consulted a bunch of middle aged, morbidly obese, transphobes.
Everybody should have access to rape support services, whether female, male, trans or anything else.
The problem is trying to squeeze everybody into two distinct types as if there are only two genders. The law should be opened up to recognise diversity and address specific needs of all communities.
if only there was terminology like "birthing parent" that might provide the necessary distinction in such circumstances but sadly those words just don't exist 😔
A man has every right to regard himself as a woman but he does not now have the right to enter a woman's changing room. You can be whoever you want until that impacts other people.
What about a trans man entering a men’s bathroom. It’s ridiculous, how would you know that a trans woman is a man, are you going to check, shall we call the police?
I think you’ll find women are more at risk by those who define themselves as men rather than trans . But hey ho, using an article from the telegraph is pretty desperate. Best wishes, happy Easter.
Because the UK supreme court is fill with a bunch of assholes that want to see trans people dead in the street. There should be non-stop protests outside the supreme court until the reverse this abhorrent decision. All this decision does is give transphobic pieces of shit an excuse to discriminate.
Suggest you read the judgement and listen to Lord Hodge's comments about the ruling not affecting trans protections against discrimination. They retain the same protections plus their own sex protections.
Given the main concern re TW seemed to be men sneaking in toilets to abuse women, doesn't the new status quo pose more of a risk to all women? How do you distinguish between trans men, who now must use the ladies, & cis male predators?
What about intersex people?? Where do they fit into this? What exactly is 'biological sex'? Does it mean having just a penis or just a vagina? Or does it include chromosomes and DNA?
No one thinks that but sadly we live in a world where male predators will abuse the system as was. See what's happened in many ways in the judicial system for ample evidence of this. I would dearly love to live in a world where that wasn't the case where these protections were completely unnecessary
The legal challenge related to a Scottish law to have greater female representation on boards. So what 'woman' means in the Equality Act is what was being considered.
No, just an interpretation of the 2010 UK Equality Act, not more broad than that. It wasn't brought by women's groups, it was anti-trans groups. The term "biological sex" shd be in quotes as it's contested, and their definition - that it's defined not by the person but by a govt document - is nuts.
It was open to trans groups to become a party to the action. Amnesty International did and made submissions that were not upheld. So the question really is why were no trans voices heard? Where were Stonewall et al? It’s like they always knew that women are born women and men don’t become women.
Yes that's what we need. Like female only cafes, buses, trains, parks, theatres, cinemas, shopping centres and motorway service stations. I think it's also important to have different spaces for different sexual orientations. Like a lesbian only cafe, or female bisexual shopping centre.
Why? All it does it make people see that quite a lot of women are intolerant bigots while depriving trans women of access to services when they are raped.
You are right, scientists don't agree that biological sex is binary, but I expect there is a definition of "biological sex" in law which needs to be corrected.
Trans people should have the same protections as cis people.
This ruling opens the door to discrimination based on sex and gender. It may also result in courts being forced to rule on biology, which is dangerous because it largely depends on which expert they have on the day.
So now as a result women will be less safe than they were. Men will now have free reign to access women only spaces by claiming to be trans men so will have to use these spaces...you can't ask to see proof so how is that a benefit to women?
Who knows? At the time of the crimes, was living as Amy George, and the child who was abused (who seems to have been pretty bright, from her evidence) accepted a lift home from a person she accepted to be a woman - may well have been more likely to refuse the lift from a man…
Trans-identifying women don’t compromise other women’s sex-based rights to privacy, dignity, and safety. They DO violate men’s sex-based rights, though. And gay men are increasingly outspoken about women sex pests who identify as gay men.
Comments
He judged purely on what the definition of 'woman' was in law. How that impacts, legally, on the protected characteristic of transgender was not in his remit
I think this will become clearer as the reality of the judgement unfolds
- J K still Rowling in the aisles
Next you'll be telling me none wore wigs - ok, ok, none wore wigs. And the man was trans - ok, ok, even a judge then..
Sensible and rational.
There is no loss. Maybe a huge loss in culture war / identitarian stakes but that in societal terms in no loss.
I’m waiting on someone telling how a clarification in law is bad.
That was one of the biggest mistakes made by the court today.
Or proving sex change.
Or proving gender exists.
But I fail to see why it shouldn't be relevant to the meaning of man, woman or homosexual.
If it's not relevant, how was it used as a tool of oppression in the first place?
and it being used as a tool of oppression does not mean this is the totality of sex, women who are unable to reproduce are still oppressed
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
At birth a nurse glances between your legs and assigns sex. That's not science.
The biggest issue women are facing is the scandalous trial and conviction rates for rape. Imagine if they'd put all that energy into affecting that rather than who sits on what vanity awards committee.
Why do you think that's a good thing?
E.g. I can see the argument that maternity leave doesn't apply to trans women, however there should be a trans equivalent for a maternal carer.
The solution isn't to apply more laws specifically to certain demographics, it's to treat people as people and not divide based on characteristics.
The problem is trying to squeeze everybody into two distinct types as if there are only two genders. The law should be opened up to recognise diversity and address specific needs of all communities.
I have never said that and do not believe that.
Why are you resorting to ludicrous accusations? Have you run out of arguments?
E.g.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/
How many trans voices did this court hear from when determining the case?
Yes. That's right. None.
Coming for the gays next?
I wonder if Piers is still defending Trump and his actions.
Parliament needs to look at it urgently, but I doubt that the current lot will do anything to protect trans people.
Even if some people disagree, how would they prove that a particular person has a particular medical history?
We have seen this happen before, e.g. in sports with women accused of being trans.
This ruling opens the door to discrimination based on sex and gender. It may also result in courts being forced to rule on biology, which is dangerous because it largely depends on which expert they have on the day.
Thank you for confirming that her trans status had no bearing on the individual’s capacity for this heinous crime.
Oh, wait, no, sorry: that's for times as likely to be *victims* of violent offences.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
I answered your question.
(Re cis male abusers, here’s my other answer - you need to click the link to see how they claimed trans status to abuse women prisoners in jail) https://bsky.app/profile/kamabi.bsky.social/post/3lmyrfuatek2e