UK supreme court ruling on legal definition of a woman

[bluethrunthru]

less than 1% have gender dysphoria, the whole thing blown out of proportion by the usual right-wing outlets.

I'd agree - when the equalities act was brought in there was an outcry about the costs to business of making buildings accessible for the disabled - indeed my father in law spent thousands on a legal challenge to having a ramp built outside a shop he owned to allow wheelchair access only to have to have a ramp installed at a cost of less than a grand. Always seemed odd to me he was so against opening up access to his business to an extra 25% of the population.

So - given the judgement today states clearly trans people still have protection under the act will there be the same outcry when trans people demand that wherever there are public toilets an extra facility is installed to facilitate a trans toilet user and that business will just have to accept the cost.

As you say its less than 1% of people and its my guess that the vast majority of people who have had an interaction with a trans person probably remain completely unaware it happened

 

[Blackley_Blue]

But "trans toilets" don't exist. You have some unisex facilities but those are few and far between. You can say "that's the way the world works" but... what does that even mean? This thread is now four pages old and I'm yet to be given an answer as to what the practical solutions are for trans women after this ruling.

Disabled toilets are 'gender neutral', and are almost always single toilets with an individual lockable door.

Could trans males and females use those and that way both sides of the 'argument' feel safe?

I know it wouldn't help with anything beyond toilet facilities (changing areas etc.)



Genuine question to you btw!

 

[dronefromsector7G]

Judgment.

Give up mate, even the media are including the E

 

[BigJoe#1]

I don't recall ever going into a building where there were men's toilets, women's toilets, and then a third toilet block especially for "trans people". For transgender women, the alternative to using women's toilets is using men's toilets (or, in a pinch disabled toilets). Is the world likely to be a safer place with transgender women using men's toilets, using men's changing rooms, or playing sports with men? You can see why someone would be concerned about a potential increase in hate crimes.

Would we need four toilet blocks? Male, Female, Transgender Female, Transgender Male? getting a bit ridiculous I think.

 

[youngbob]

I guess as they are biologically male and there are the cubicles in the Male toilets to accommodate them in the male toilets.... then what has been done in the decades past should prevail...? We cannot stop the world spinning on its axis for every single individual issue that is raised.

Personally I think the logical way forward is to have unisex toilets where individual cubicles offer the required privacy but I acknowledge that does in itself deprive women of the right to have women only spaces. Same could apply to changing rooms but this is all going to cost money somewhere down the line.

But, if I've read your post correctly, what you've said here seems to be operating on the belief that transgender women have only been using women's toilets for the last 5-10 years. Basically since it became a hot button issue. But transgender women have been using women's toilets since before either of us were born, we just didn't really know about it because awareness and knowledge on this subject was so low.

I'm not gonna say the world has always been safe and fair for transgender people because that would be denying history, but until about 2016 transgender people just kinda faded into the background of everyday life and everyone just kinda plodded on in ignorance. I don't really see what's changed in the last 10 years that means we have to undo how things have been in this country for generations already.

I absolutely agree that the logical way forward is unisex toilets, but as I keep stressing in this thread - gender critical people who are celebrating this ruling also reject unisex toilets. They want toilets for males and females to be kept separate and they want transgender women to use male toilets. My argument is that such a decision will lead to a spike in hate crimes and I'm yet to have anyone offer a constructive contradiction to that belief.

 

[youngbob]

Would we need four toilet blocks? Male, Female, Transgender Female, Transgender Male? getting a bit ridiculous I think.

Yes, it is a bit ridiculous. Which is why I'm asking those who are celebrating this ruling what they think the practical solution is for transgender women who are no longer allowed to use women's toilets. I've repeated myself loads here but the obvious response is "they should just use men's toilets". But as I've said several times already, gender critical people view men as inherently violent creatures, so what happens when a bunch of "poofs in dresses" are told to share toilets with inherently violent creatures? Do we think they all shake hands and smile at each other?

 

[BigJoe#1]

But, if I've read your post correctly, what you've said here seems to be operating on the belief that transgender women have only been using women's toilets for the last 5-10 years. Basically it became a hot button issue. But transgender women have been using women's toilets since before either of us were born, we just didn't really know about it because awareness and knowledge on this subject was so low.

I'm not gonna say the world has always been safe and fair for transgender people because that would be denying history, but until about 2016 transgender people just kinda faded into the background of everyday life and everyone just kinda plodded on in ignorance. I don't really see what's changed in the last 10 years that means we have to undo how things have been in this country for generations already.

I absolutely agree that the logical way forward is unisex toilets, but as I keep stressing in this thread - gender critical people who are celebrating this ruling also reject unisex toilets. They want toilets for males and females to be kept separate and they want transgender women to use male toilets. My argument is that such a decision will lead to a spike in hate crimes and I'm yet to have anyone offer a constructive contradiction to that belief.

I agree, see my subsequent post re: four toilet blocks.... it's a tough (and costly) one.

 

[Nickyweaves]

If the plan is to somehow prevent Trans people from using the toilet of the sex they identify, then the next question is how do you know when they are.
Many trans people pass very well in their identified sex. are you going to do a physical examination? Even if you were, many have had surgery so it still would not be obvious.

Many trans women are attracted to men, in fact a lesbian woman would potentially be more of a 'sexual threat' to a woman.
Does this also mean that trans men with beards and penises will have to use the women's toilets?

It is hilarious how many men support the gender critical women who brought this case. Their argument is that all men are potentially sexual predators and no woman is safe sharing a space with them.

If you want to take action against sexual predators then perhaps you should be focussing more on priests, politicians and businessmen.

 

[youngbob]

Disabled toilets are 'gender neutral', and are almost always single toilets with an individual lockable door.

Could trans males and females use those and that way both sides of the 'argument' feel safe?

I know it wouldn't help with anything beyond toilet facilities (changing areas etc.)



Genuine question to you btw!

A lot of transgender people do already use disabled loos, for what it's worth. In the community there's a big awareness campaign about radar keys. But then you get into a debate about them potentially obstructing disabled loos when they technically don't have a "disability". I think if you follow it all to the very end of the road, transgender women have been put in a position where they can't really do right for doing wrong. Enter a woman's toilet they're a potential sex attacker, enter a men's toilet they're a potential target for abuse, enter a disabled toilet and they're potentially in the way of those who genuinely need it. I don't really see a solution beyond unisex toilets but 99% of buildings don't have them and it'll cost a fuckton of cash to make the adjustments.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

The whole transgender movement is a cynical attempt by a certain type of men to keep women in their place.
It is the acceptable face of misogyny and being able to tell women how to behave and what they have to put up with. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As such, today’s ruling is to be welcomed by all. But it won’t be of course.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I'd agree - when the equalities act was brought in there was an outcry about the costs to business of making buildings accessible for the disabled - indeed my father in law spent thousands on a legal challenge to having a ramp built outside a shop he owned to allow wheelchair access only to have to have a ramp installed at a cost of less than a grand. Always seemed odd to me he was so against opening up access to his business to an extra 25% of the population.

So - given the judgement today states clearly trans people still have protection under the act will there be the same outcry when trans people demand that wherever there are public toilets an extra facility is installed to facilitate a trans toilet user and that business will just have to accept the cost.

As you say its less than 1% of people and its my guess that the vast majority of people who have had an interaction with a trans person probably remain completely unaware it happened

You really don't get it.

There'll be no trans toilets or single trans spaces, the T in LGBTQ+ have never campaigned for them.

Might I remind you of the ruling....

"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."

And by extension biological men.

So single sex spaces are reserved for the two separate sexes, men and women.

Why does this matter?

Because the T in LGBTQ+ don't want a space of their own, they want to be accepted into the single sex space of their choice, as of today they have no legal right to do so, they didn't before, the ruling today simply confirmed that.

Put simply today's ruling states trans women are not women, because the definition of woman refers to, and I quote "a biological woman" therefore trans women are not women and trans men are not men, in fact they do not constitute a sex at all, because the Supreme Court has stated sex is defined by biology and there are only two of sexes, therefore businesses will not be required in law to provide single sex spaces for trans people because trans people do not constitute a separate sex, and in that one respect the T in LGBTQ+ concur.

On the provision of single-sex services, the written supreme court judgment on the For Women Scotland appeal against the Scottish government gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.

It states:

Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.

It adds:

It is fanciful (even perverse) to think that any reasonable objection to the presence of a person of the opposite sex could be grounded in (gender recognition certificate) GRC status or that a confidential GRC could make any difference at all.

This was always a zero sum game. Gay folk fight for their own space, a legitimate space, recognised both socially and legally as theirs. The T in LGBTQ+ have never campaigned for a space of their own, they want in on a space already occupied and today the Supreme Court said no.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Would we need four toilet blocks? Male, Female, Transgender Female, Transgender Male? getting a bit ridiculous I think.

What about the intersex!!

 

[inbetween]

I guess as they are biologically male and there are the cubicles in the Male toilets to accommodate them in the male toilets.... then what has been done in the decades past should prevail...? We cannot stop the world spinning on its axis for every single individual issue that is raised.

Personally I think the logical way forward is to have unisex toilets where individual cubicles offer the required privacy but I acknowledge that does in itself deprive women of the right to have women only spaces. Same could apply to changing rooms but this is all going to cost money somewhere down the line.

To be honest nobody can win here, I just wish people would treat the toilet as a toilet instead of some ridiculous identity issue. At the end of the day anybody can dress as a woman and do something dodgy, the sign on the door doesn't make any difference. Mixed toilets exist and work fine in 99.9% of settings.

The only part of mixed toilets that makes me uncomfortable is when it comes to children. I wouldn't want my daughter mixing with anybody except other women in the womens toilets. I suppose that's just the principle of it whereas in reality what is stopping a bloke from dressing as a woman and walking in there anyway?

It shouldn't really be a political subject because regardless of gender every human being has to go somewhere. Maybe we should just bring back the privys and crap in the streets, I don't think anybody worried about gender then.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Great news for lesbians....

'This ruling restores freedom of association to lesbians'​

​

A campaign group says the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a biological understanding of sex.

"This ruling restores freedom of association to lesbians and allows us to exclude biological men from our groups, spaces and associations," the group, Scottish Lesbians, says.

"Lesbians have been at the forefront of the harm caused by the confusion around the Equality and Gender Recognition Acts."

They add: "This case has been an existential one for lesbians and we're glad to finally have clarity over the law."

The LGB Alliance charity said the ruling “marks a watershed for women”.

According to the PA news agency, chief executive Kate Barker said:

The ruling confirms that the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC (gender recognition certificate).

It is difficult to express the significance of this ruling: it marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade.

Barker said the supreme court ruling “delivers huge benefits to women and to lesbians”.

She told the PA news agency:

This is a victory for biology, for common sense, for reality.

It’s definitely a victory for lesbians as well, and it was specifically mentioned in the case how lesbians have been disadvantaged by this idea that maybe a man could be a woman and could be a lesbian if he had a certificate, and the ruling just absolutely blew that out of the water.

It was really fair, it was really clear and it delivers huge benefits to women and to lesbians in particular, so I’m absolutely we’re all thrilled about it.

Barker said the ruling would cut out a lot of expensive and time-consuming court cases in the future “because it sets a clear precedent”.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Still waiting for an answer to this.

If you agree with the ruling @blueinsa and @The perfect fumble then please, I really want to know, what are transgender women supposed to do now they (presumably) can't use women's toilets, can't use women's changing rooms, and can't play sports with other women?

You do know real Women don't want "trans women" anywhere near Female sports don't you?

 

[Semper aggressus]

Common sense decision. Gender is determined by genetics and biology. There are only two options, depending on XX or XY chromosomes.

If trans had been ruled as women what would stop some bloke wandering into the female changing rooms?

Also how far down the rabbit hole would this lead - people wanting to identify as animals?

No reason why everyone shouldn’t still be respected and treated as you yourself want to be treated, just no need to turn people into something they’re not if it affects others.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Common sense decision. Gender is determined by genetics and biology. There are only two options, depending on XX or XY chromosomes.

If trans had been ruled as women what would stop some bloke wandering into the female changing rooms?

Also how far down the rabbit hole would this lead - people wanting to identify as animals?

No reason why everyone shouldn’t still be respected and treated as you yourself want to be treated, just no need to turn people into something they’re not if it affects others.

My daughters school have what is called two furys. They identify as cats, they are allowed to wear different uniform where as other kids are punished for slightest misdemeanours in uniform

 

[Elbow beards]

My daughters school have what is called two furys. They identify as cats, they are allowed to wear different uniform where as other kids are punished for slightest misdemeanours in uniform

They should say 'right, while all the other kids are off to Blackpool for a day trip, you two can stay here in cages' see how long they identify as cats then.
FFS. What are their parents and the fucking school thinking, pandering to them?!?

 

[BigJoe#1]

They should say 'right, while all the other kids are off to Blackpool for a day trip, you two can stay here in cages' see how long they identify as cats then.
FFS. What are their parents and the fucking school thinking, pandering to them?!?

I wish I could like this more!!

 

[maxwellblue]

My daughters school have what is called two furys. They identify as cats, they are allowed to wear different uniform where as other kids are punished for slightest misdemeanours in uniform

That is just ridiculous. Not sure who needs a slap more, the kids or the teachers and parents for pandering to them.

It's things like this that are a direct offshoot of all this transgender nonsense.