Today's UK Supreme Court ruling

[CopperKnob]

I'm interested in people's views re the UK Supreme Courts judgement today, that the legal definition of what a woman is – as stated in the Equality Act is ‘biological’ and does not include trans folks with a Gender Recognition Certificate (at least this is my understanding).
.
This post is NOT intended to be inflammatory. Hoping the mods will be monitoring closely. I've tried to phrase as sensitively as I can though I appreciate that that may not be the case throughmy own naivety. But I do feel that the question of consequences is applicable to the BDSM community.
.
Does the Equality Act need to be updated? Whilst gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, it obviously won't apply to all.
.
What's the reaction within the trans community? What is the potential impact (we can probably make an educated guess at the headlines) What steps are the community taking/planning? What can allies do to support?
.
Genuinely, from someone who may only have superficial understanding but also doesn't believe that legislation is/should be as black and white as it is and with understanding that this is new and it may take time for the impact to be realised.

[Deleted Member]

I think it should biologically based. Women who have worked hard for years to achieve goals in sports are being robbed because men are joining women’s sports. Men already have a physical advantage over women. It’s unfair to women. It also opens up safety concerns for women in public restrooms. Just my opinion. 

[Nothere-4932]

I think the equality act needs updating however I support this for one reason and it is healthcare. At the moment trans folk do not get medical reminders about screenings that may be relevant to them, due to current NHS rules. While I think reminders about your dead gender may cause stress and harm I worry about more harm being enacted due to not being included in screening process for things like cancers that are offered more to one gender than the others. The ideal situation is all genders are sent equal reminders and are scanned equally but untill the funding is in place that can't happen. So I see this more as a NHS funding issue than anything else. Please note I am more than happy to be corrected by the trans community if I have made false assumptions.

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, EroticPeterParker said:

I think it should biologically based. Women who have worked hard for years to achieve goals in sports are being robbed because men are joining women’s sports. Men already have a physical advantage over women. It’s unfair to women. It also opens up safety concerns for women in public restrooms. Just my opinion. 

And that's fair I guess. I don't have the same view. To reduce someone to their biology alone is to remove their personhood. It doesn't account for hormones/people who are intersex or have various medical conditions affecting their biology. Food for thought maybe. I also believe that if a man wanted to enter a single sex space for ulterior motives, they wouldn't bother going through the rigmarole of gender reassignment.

[OB****]

I do not understand it enough. I don't know what is involved to get a gender certificate. I don't know what the legal definition of "biological" is. Is there a point in a trans journey that constitutes biological? Can they never qualify under the legal definition?

[LV****]

15 minutes ago, EroticPeterParker said:

I think it should biologically based. Women who have worked hard for years to achieve goals in sports are being robbed because men are joining women’s sports. Men already have a physical advantage over women. It’s unfair to women. It also opens up safety concerns for women in public restrooms. Just my opinion. 

Agreed, for the most part. However, I think the solution to restroom issues is restrooms with stalls for either sex for actual elimination of waste. Then, after that portion of a restroom experience is over it goes to public sinks for both sexes, for washing your hands.
If someone is born with male XY chromosomes should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports. They’re taking away scholarships and making things more dangerous for XX women athletes.

[Lo****]

I think trying to define women by body characteristics is only going to hurt all women, trans or cis

[CopperKnob]

6 minutes ago, OB1Kenobi said:

I do not understand it enough. I don't know what is involved to get a gender certificate. I don't know what the legal definition of "biological" is. Is there a point in a trans journey that constitutes biological? Can they never qualify under the legal definition?

It's my understanding that, under current legislation, a trans woman will never be recognised as a woman legally.

[bi****]

When I read trans women were going to NHS cancer scans and forcing the nurses to move their bollocks aside to pretend to perform the test, then its obvious the whole thing turned insane. It should protect women from these men in their spaces, and sports and heathcare too. and protect society as well. Its time people were allowed to recognise the obvious.

Men with fetishes were being bullies to get their thrills. Forcing the rest of us to live their delusions. It affects people with true gender dsyphoria and I think it should cause laws to be firmed up to recognise those truly dysphoric and living as the opposite gender, whilst refusing to play the games the modern trans activists demand.

[Mr_KinkyPickles]

The conflict between the Acts in question was the result of *** poor knee jerk emotional reaction drafting. Such is law though.
Law is black and white. Discretion is granted sometimes for legal interpretation.
The whole mess needed clearing up but there are no votes to be winning doing so, only votes lost.
So the legal system was asked to make a decision.

It's a matter of drawing a line for the time being. Until one gender can have all their genes replaced to become the other gender, or something in-between if they wise, then we need a distincton. Men are stronger, faster, bigger than women. A man cannot become a woman currently.
The insistence that trans women are women is wrong.
The other way round doesn't matter as much in respect to safety. Interestingly I have seen trans men as vociferous a group regarding this issue.
A woman will (almost) always be at physical disadvantage to a man who has transition to a trans woman.
Women's spaces, sports, & distinct roles become battlegrounds - which isn't right.
I welcome the ruling.
Trans women are not yet women. They hover somewhere in between. As above the technology isn't there yet. Until then the distinction must remain.

[LV****]

7 minutes ago, LoveTheDog said:

I think trying to define women by body characteristics is only going to hurt all women, trans or cis

I agree that trying to define people by their body characteristics can be hurtful and that’s why I can’t really have genuine conversation about this subject while using terms that are not specific. It’s not about ambiguous or fluid terms like gender. I’m specifically talking about what defines a male or female, being born with XY or XX chromosomes. This is specific and what makes the difference. This is how productive conversation can happen.

[ne****]

These laws are made under the thin guise of protecting women... while the ones writing these laws are r**ists and p***philes. These laws are designed to humiliate and shame both cis and transgender women. Keep the government out of our fucking pants.

[CopperKnob]

11 minutes ago, LoveTheDog said:

I think trying to define women by body characteristics is only going to hurt all women, trans or cis

Historically, everytime we simplify identity, we end up doing the opposite of protecting the people who need it most.
.
All this does is protect a really narrow definition of womanhood. To suggest otherwise is thinly veiled transphobia.

[Stephen-8967]

Just imagine if you were a man and became a woman, but you were built like dwayne Johnson that's a bit unfair in a boxing ring don't you think.

[CopperKnob]

26 minutes ago, Nothere-4932 said:

I think the equality act needs updating however I support this for one reason and it is healthcare. At the moment trans folk do not get medical reminders about screenings that may be relevant to them, due to current NHS rules. While I think reminders about your dead gender may cause stress and harm I worry about more harm being enacted due to not being included in screening process for things like cancers that are offered more to one gender than the others. The ideal situation is all genders are sent equal reminders and are scanned equally but untill the funding is in place that can't happen. So I see this more as a NHS funding issue than anything else. Please note I am more than happy to be corrected by the trans community if I have made false assumptions.

I hadn't considered this perspective actually and I think it's a fair point. I do think it's easily rectified though especially at grassroots/local levels by creating person centred care which is on all ICBs agendas and has been for a long time (for any comeback re the last point - I know - the NHS has a long way to go.)

[Ra****]

This is one step closer to telling woman that they need be womanly enough to be a woman. Who here has seen their genetics? Who here knows what the genetics of a man and woman look like? It is arbitrary and ridiculous. Doctors don't think this is a good idea and it isn't helping anyone but the people that are scared of trans people.

[le****]

Unfortunately these issues are largely being driven by the people who talk the loudest and know the least. These are very complex and nuanced issues that should largely be looked at individual on a case by case basis and affect a minute portion of the population. Instead we get ham-handed rhetoric and misguided legislation that is largely performative and generally harmful, geared mostly at making people comfortable in their ignorance. That goes for the UK and especially for here in the US right now.

[Deleted Member]

35 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

And that's fair I guess. I don't have the same view. To reduce someone to their biology alone is to remove their personhood. It doesn't account for hormones/people who are intersex or have various medical conditions affecting their biology. Food for thought maybe. I also believe that if a man wanted to enter a single sex space for ulterior motives, they wouldn't bother going through the rigmarole of gender reassignment.

If they get a gender reassignment it should also be law to be known. Straight me shouldn’t be at risk of sleeping with a biological male just because of a surgery. Just my opinion. 

 

18 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Historically, everytime we simplify identity, we end up doing the opposite of protecting the people who need it most.
.
All this does is protect a really narrow definition of womanhood. To suggest otherwise is thinly veiled transphobia.

What is woman hood? 

[MR****]

I'm not familiar with the case. Is it related to a specific area, or is it being viewed as a blanket ruling?

[FE****]

1 minute ago, MRGNCY said:

I'm not familiar with the case. Is it related to a specific area, or is it being viewed as a blanket ruling?

Do a google search for "bbc supreme court woman" should get you enough info to be up to s***d.

[CopperKnob]

I'm not responding to individuals with these questions but the sporting sector has been raised several times now (which is just madness to me)
.
What percentage of the population are trans women?
.
What percentage of that population are involved in sports pro or otherwise?
.
Don't guess, I'm expecting you to go to a credible source of information and take a look for yourselves.

[Ni****]

4 minutes ago, EroticPeterParker said:

What is woman hood? 

Don't worry, you're not at risk of ANY woman, trans or otherwise, sleeping with you.

[Ar****]

I only shared Professor Rebecca Helm's Twitter comments about how phenomenally intricate (scientifically) this subject is just over a week ago, and found myself feeling I had to re-share them today.

For whatever diverse opinions people may have on the matter, it is clear that today's ruling was at best unscientific - and I appreciate how clinical and cold that sounds, when this discussion is one which should be approached with understanding, empathy, and compassion. 

I won't go into the details but the short of it is that we can be i) genetically male or female, ii) chromosomally male or female (or neither or both), iii) hormonally male, female, or non-binary, iv) physically male, female, or non-binary, all in pretty much any combination and that is before considering other aspects such as cell receptors and their relationship with hormones.

These are all things which the world's leading geneticists, biologists and such have known for a long time and continue to understand more about as time passes. People don't need to understand how it works to recognise that our bodies are more complicated than the base and sweeping information we get taught at a school age; to fail to acknowledge that which we don't understand is only to admit our own ignorance and lack of education. 

Edited April 16 by Aranhis
Typos

[MR****]

8 minutes ago, MRGNCY said:

I'm not familiar with the case. Is it related to a specific area, or is it being viewed as a blanket ruling?

Just read a bit of the Time article on it, looks like the case was brought by a trans exclusionary group and doesn't relate to any active case. Perhaps an attempt to drum up support this side of the Atlantic for the Trump administration's current attacks of tans rights?

[Ra****]

10 minutes ago, EroticPeterParker said:

What is woman hood? 

If you can't tell the difference, what risk are you taking???