Today's UK Supreme Court ruling

[Ar****]

22 minutes ago, Rainbowsandunicorns said:

Who here has seen their genetics? 

Nail, meet head. I'm damned sure virtually none of the people commenting in support of today's ruling have.

How many would get a shock if they did?

[Ni****]

5 minutes ago, Rainbowsandunicorns said:

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

Because he's a beta male so insecure with his sexuality he thinks it would make him gay to be attracted to a trans woman.

[CopperKnob]

20 minutes ago, EroticPeterParker said:

What is woman hood? 

I'm glad you've asked because, I think this is the point....
.
It's far to complex to define what a woman is but I can say that it is completely separate to sex. Woman is a gender identity. Therefore, it cannot be defined by biology.

[FE****]

A friendly reminder, keep it on topic and not personal.

[th****]

20 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

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.

Within the U.S., the population of trans people is less than 1 percent.

Within the world, it's estimated at most, 3 percent.

We are a minority group, and one of the smallest in existence. People want to erase us, simply put, because it threatens their comfort with thinking the world is all male or female. But as with many things in life, there are gray areas. I "identify as" which I hate saying, because I AM, a woman, because that is what I found to be both socially and sexually right for me. Surprisingly, especially with as curvy as I am (check my profile if you'd like ♡) I have found that having a penis holds next to no detriment to my ability to live as a woman. I'd ask the cisgender ladies if they believe owning a dildo holds any bearing over their ability to live as a woman... because that is about what my 🍦 amounts to.

[Deleted Member]

2 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

I'm glad you've asked because, I think this is the point....
.
It's far to complex to define what a woman is but I can say that it is completely separate to sex. Woman is a gender identity. Therefore, it cannot be defined by biology.

Woman hood is when a girl starts the stages of becoming a woman. It is not when a man decides to be a woman. I’m sorry but this causes safety issues, equality issues, sports issues, and the list goes on. 

[Ra****]

1 hour 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. 

The only real safety concern for women is CIS men.

[Deleted Member]

I agree 1000% gender is an antonym for sex. Just like aioli and mayonnaise.

[Ra****]

44 minutes ago, Stephen-8967 said:

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.

I think you should take a look at what testosterone does in the body. If this were actually the risk all the terfs were crying about you would see trans women absolutely dominating in their chosen sport. They are not. You are speaking in "imagine ifs" instead of looking at what is actually happening.

[ki****]

This thread upsets me greatly to be honest. I've always considered the fetish community to be pretty accepting and inclusive, so to see the comments here today being just as hateful and ignorant as everywhere else is frankly quite devastating.

For the record:

- Trans people in the UK have lost ALL right with regard to living as their authentic selves today. That's everything from the right to use the bathroom, to which prisons we are sent to. Legally, according to this ruling, we can never, regardless of having a GRC or surgeries or hormones or whatever, be considered as anything other than what a doctor decided we were based on external genitals at the point of birth. This completely erases the existence of intersex people entirely from law, and is contrary to all medical and scientific knowledge regarding trans people.

- The sports thing is a complete distraction. Firstly, there's a huge amount of nuance to that situation - statements like 'a woman will always be at a physical disadvantage to a man' is insanely misogynistic, let alone transphobic. Do men really think they would all beat Serena Williams at tennis? Regardless though, before all this mess, individual sports were making science backed assessments around fairness and that was fine. It simply wasn't and isn't a problem. There are near to 0 trans women competing at the highest levels of any sport. The only purpose behind this 'debate' is to isolate and hate on trans people, trans women in particular.

- There are some issues around healthcare and screenings but they almost all make life harder for trans people and cause no issues for anyone else. That is purely a technology problem that is antiquated in its definition of who needs what screenings. As a trans woman on hormones, I need to be screened for both breast cancer and prostate cancer, putting me in either 'box' doesn't satisfy my requirements. Trans women insisting on cervical screenings is an insane suggestion and simply doesn't happen. Maybe some nutcase tried it once, but they don't have the support of the trans community or are included in what we're fighting for. We only want the appropriate medical support for our individual bodies (which can vary wildly in their similarities to the 'defaults' of our assigned sex).

- Any assertion that trans activists are fighting for the legal rights of those who have a cross-dressing fetish is just plain wrong. In fact it's the exact opposite. We want to be respected for who we genuinely are and for our existence to NOT be conflated with those who are dressing as a kink. Our lives and identity are not a fetish. That's the whole point. Yes the laws need to be firmed up and updated but to strip the entire trans community of our right to live our lives as our authentic selves, is not the way to do that.

- Most importantly though, today's ruling only serves to isolate trans people from society, and absolutely will result in a spike in trans *** over the coming years and ultimately that's what this is about. Trans people just want to live and those on the opposite side want us hidden away and/or dead. To those who are undecided on this issue, that's what it boils down to and that's what you need to decide here when it comes to where you stand. Trans 'activists' have been demonised as making insane demands. That's just not true, we just want to live and be accepted for who we authentically are. Today's ruling is a huge step backwards in our ability to do that for those of us in the UK It's sad and terrifying.

[tr****]

Nature make humans born man or woman, similar to dogs and bitches

[DH****]

A woman can have babies
A man Can not
It’s a biological fact there’s a biological different
It’s another form of divide and conquer
You can identify as whatever you like that’s why god gave free will
Male and female biology runs through the entire evolution of every single *** on this planet and they are set at birth

[ki****]

I love trans women a lot. But I do think that there needs to be a clear definition between a woman and a trans woman. And as of today, this is it. I think it's very important to have that clear boundary and definition. It protects women which I'm all for. I think perhaps maybe other things need to be put into place for trans women, bathrooms, changing rooms etc. But as of now, I'm all for it. And I know I'm gonna get so much hate for saying that (which is a shame because I love trans women), but it's the truth. A woman always has been defined biologically through history and for good reason.

[CopperKnob]

For those willing, there's a petition on change dot org

[Bo****]

1 hour ago, NimbleSorcery said:

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

Do you think your passive-aggressive personal attack is warranted by the other commenter asking a simple question?
Do you think it lends any validity to your argument by doing so?

[Li****]

I think the part that most people glaze over is that this hurts more than just the people it's meant to target. There are many people with genetic disorders, hormonal Imbalances, and even cis men and women who will be restricted access to certain types of medical care due to some bullshit technicality that the uninformed have dreamed up. they don't care about the collateral damage though. they just want to hurt trans people.

[CopperKnob]

1 hour ago, EroticPeterParker said:

Woman hood is when a girl starts the stages of becoming a woman. It is not when a man decides to be a woman. I’m sorry but this causes safety issues, equality issues, sports issues, and the list goes on. 

It certainly does create equality issues.
.
I'd like more information on the safety issues that cis women experience specifically caused by trans women. Not according to you or anecdotal but based on fact/evidence
.
I'd also like to know the thoughts of people in relation to trans men entering single sex spaces.

[FE****]

This is a contentious topic and we want to remind you of the forum guidelines "Denouncing people, harassments, insults or vilification of any kind does not fly with us. Failure to comply with these rules will mean withdrawal of rights, expulsion from the forum or in serious cases deletion of the account." Debate with facts and do not insult people.  People are entitled to an opinion that is different to yours.  If you don't agree with their opinion, look to educate them, not insult them.  We suspended all approvals for this topic yesterday to allow the immediate heat to subside.  None of those outstanding posts will be approved.  Please submit new comments if you wish to debate this subject further remembering the above guidelines.

[Ar****]

On 4/16/2025 at 10:42 PM, CopperKnob said:

I'd also like to know the thoughts of people in relation to trans men entering single sex spaces.

I made a remark on my social media not quarter of an hour ago which included a point which you touch on with this comment.

I have seen nigh on no part of the discussion regarding this ruling talk about trans men - all the heat, all the furore, all the focus of people's arguments, it is on trans women.

Which seems to me to demonstrate the inherent bigotry and bias present in much of the debates; the problem many opposers claim to have with trans people is not the problem they do actually have.

[Deleted Member]

It was once explained to me that the judge does not judge on whether the law is a good law, just what the law means.
.
In this case I think the law needs to be re-written to include trans people, and expand the definitions to include the existence of people who are not XX or XY.
.
In summery it is a badly written law which needs to be rewritten.

[ey****]

as some of the dust settled it's become more apt that a lot of people are weaponising the result without due cause

However, a lot of trans folk (and people with any form of understanding/empathy) are rightfully concerned.

So, here goes.  The ruling ONLY was related to the Equalities Act 2010.   That, within that act - the definition of a woman was a 'cis woman' unless otherwise explained elsewhere in the act.

Single Sex Spaces could *already* limit to cis women (or, cis men) so nothing has changed in that regard - however, of course there are worries some that did include trans women, will now exclude them because of (a) their own prejudice (b) misunderstanding the ruling (c) pressure from those who have weaponised or misunderstood the ruling

The only other law/act changed as a result of this is one in Scotland, introduced in 2018, which the whole thing was about (the act basically *encouraged* firms to have 50% women on public boards, and trans women were included in this 50% - trans women no longer count towards this 50% recommendation) 

However, the EA2010 was never really fit for purpose in the first place, a lot of catch-alls and this now means there needs to be specific provisions written for the SIX sex classes this ruling has indirectly created (cis woman, trans woman with GRC, trans woman without GRC, cis man, cis man with GRC, cis man without GRC) which is going to take a long time, which is a concern because it means there are assorted loopholes left open

Within the ruling - a trans woman can *still* claim sex discrimination if they're perceived as a cis woman, and still can claim discrimination on grounds of being trans.  This means there is some ironing out to do, but - but, effectively, a lot of businesses need a 3rd bathroom now. A lot of gyms, etc need a 3rd changing room. If they aint got space, they need to knock through into one big gender neutral one.  

Of course, the weaponised side is of course pressuring the changes into other acts and into practice where it's not legally required.   Hospitals could permit trans folk on single sex wards last Monday, and can do so next Monday, but then there are those pressuring them not to.

So for everyone's rights and safety - if not there, then where?

 

[Ar****]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:52 PM, CopperKnob said:

What is the potential impact (we can probably make an educated guess at the headlines)?

I've made comments on another site today about one potential impact which I think demonstrates how poorly thought-through and considered the ruling was.

A gentleman was saying that this is a positive step because of all the horror stories he had read about predatory men pretending to be trans/NB to gain access to women's bathrooms (yes, that old chestnut), and that he does not want any male entering such a space that his wife or daughter uses in any circumstances.

After I'd pointed out that he himself had just demonstrated that the argument used here is not about trans people but about ab*sers and predators, I explained that what the ruling has actually done is make it easier for such hypothetical criminals to gain access to women's toilets and other facilities. If a would-be ab*ser was previously of the mindset to go to those lengths, they can instead now stroll straight into a washroom facility presenting exactly as they are and if challenged - in the first instance anyway - simply claim to be a trans man.

I also note that neither this gentleman nor anybody else I've seen using the "man in a woman's space" argument has objected to or petitioned against venues which operate a policy of employing cleaning/sanitation workers of any sex or gender to work in toilet facilities...

Another impact I've seen picked up on today which has particularly serious implications is that of protected job roles. So many positions - the majority of those in women's refuges, for example - are exempt from equal rights laws and can only be offered to women (usually; there are instances where the reverse is true). This ruling now opens the door for trans men to potentially apply for such positions and be able to submit a valid discrimination claim if their application should not be seriously considered fairly.

[CopperKnob]

22 hours ago, Aranhis said:

I made a remark on my social media not quarter of an hour ago which included a point which you touch on with this comment.

I have seen nigh on no part of the discussion regarding this ruling talk about trans men - all the heat, all the furore, all the focus of people's arguments, it is on trans women.

Which seems to me to demonstrate the inherent bigotry and bias present in much of the debates; the problem many opposers claim to have with trans people is not the problem they do actually have.

I understand that the question posed to court is "what is a woman" or words to that effect and so that's all they had to consider.
But also, what is a man, if we're questioning the meaning of one specific gender why not all of them?
Why conflate gender identity with sex?
.
I could be really really skeptical...
VAWG is high on the Gov. agenda but no media outlet will name the source of risk.
Meanwhile, the Gov. are happily going along with the the courts determination, in all likelihood that they can put out a statement at the end of their term that they did their bid to protect women. The stats won't back it up but voters don't tend to loom at them.
Trans women have been scapegoated and those that they're suggesting they want to protect are at more risk.

[CopperKnob]

14 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

as some of the dust settled it's become more apt that a lot of people are weaponising the result without due cause

However, a lot of trans folk (and people with any form of understanding/empathy) are rightfully concerned.

So, here goes.  The ruling ONLY was related to the Equalities Act 2010.   That, within that act - the definition of a woman was a 'cis woman' unless otherwise explained elsewhere in the act.

Single Sex Spaces could *already* limit to cis women (or, cis men) so nothing has changed in that regard - however, of course there are worries some that did include trans women, will now exclude them because of (a) their own prejudice (b) misunderstanding the ruling (c) pressure from those who have weaponised or misunderstood the ruling

The only other law/act changed as a result of this is one in Scotland, introduced in 2018, which the whole thing was about (the act basically *encouraged* firms to have 50% women on public boards, and trans women were included in this 50% - trans women no longer count towards this 50% recommendation) 

However, the EA2010 was never really fit for purpose in the first place, a lot of catch-alls and this now means there needs to be specific provisions written for the SIX sex classes this ruling has indirectly created (cis woman, trans woman with GRC, trans woman without GRC, cis man, cis man with GRC, cis man without GRC) which is going to take a long time, which is a concern because it means there are assorted loopholes left open

Within the ruling - a trans woman can *still* claim sex discrimination if they're perceived as a cis woman, and still can claim discrimination on grounds of being trans.  This means there is some ironing out to do, but - but, effectively, a lot of businesses need a 3rd bathroom now. A lot of gyms, etc need a 3rd changing room. If they aint got space, they need to knock through into one big gender neutral one.  

Of course, the weaponised side is of course pressuring the changes into other acts and into practice where it's not legally required.   Hospitals could permit trans folk on single sex wards last Monday, and can do so next Monday, but then there are those pressuring them not to.

So for everyone's rights and safety - if not there, then where?

 

We've definitely already seen large amounts of bigotry at play.
.
I do wonder whether we (England) are compliant with the ECHR, primarily the Goodwin ruling. We already know that swevices such as the CJS aren't (I'm currently working with a trans woman in an all male prison population) but for me this simply rein***s that services don't have to accommodate the needs of trans people.