🚨 UNITED KINGDOM 🇬🇧 SUPREME COURT 🏛️ 👨⚖️ RULES “TRANSGENDER WOMEN” 🙅♀ ARE NOT ❌ WOMEN 🚫🏳️⚧️ 👎 STRENGTHENS WOMENS PROTECTIONS LAWS ♀ 👩
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
null
...
UK
USA
USA
King_Kamala61
:mjlit: Nasty Brehz :mjlit:
This dude is obsessed with Transwomen. This is an AMERICAN BOARD. UK sexual orientation rights do not matter over here.
What is your intention with this question?
The Supreme Court of a major liberal country, with a left-of-center incumbent government, made a SIGNIFICANT social legislative announcement about a controversial issue…
…and you’re asking ME that?
Do you realize the Trump DoJ sued the state of Maine over its transgender policy TODAY?
This is a front line public issue
The funny part is why don’t have this type of ruling here because we don’t have goofy laws like that 
They brought it on themselves. They wanted to add more women to Scottish politics then the trans activists thought that included people who “identified as women” and they wanted to backdoor their agenda in through the regulatory loophole meant for women. Then ACTUAL lesbian women had to successfully sue and beat them at their own game.The funny part is why don’t have this type of ruling here because we don’t have goofy laws like that
The trans activists literally went too far.
It all backfired. The feminist lesbians hit them with the reverse DEI
In order for the USA to fix this, they’re gonna need an actual court case cause I dont see any laws passing against it and Trump’s executive orders are just gonna get tossed with the next president. I am HOPING Trump just revs this out all the way with some conservative test case that wins at the Supreme Court because the last thing I want is Democrats defending ANYTHING related to trans issues going into 2026 and 2028.
@A-dotty @Adeptus Astartes @dora_da_destroyer @Rekkapryde @Neo. The Only. The One. @the cac mamba @Uachet @Absolut @Sterling Archer @TheDarkCloud @Max Power @Pressure
2 Up 2 Down
Veteran
What is your intention with this question?
The Supreme Court of a major liberal country, with a left-of-center incumbent government, made a SIGNIFICANT social legislative announcement about a controversial issue…
…and you’re asking ME that?
Do you realize the Trump DoJ sued the state of Maine over its transgender policy TODAY?
This is a front line public issue
Just go and get you some dikk-p*ssy so you can get this obsession out of your system.
Trans rules torn up after Supreme Court decision
Ruling on women’s rights expected to lead to changes across single-sex spaces and elite sport
www.telegraph.co.uk
Trans rules torn up after Supreme Court decision
Summarize
Ruling on women’s rights expected to lead to changes across single-sex spaces and elite sport
Janet Eastham
Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder, the co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London
Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder, the co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London Credit: Lucy North/PA
Public bodies are under pressure to tear up pro-trans guidance after a ruling that only biological women are women.
The decision by the Supreme Court that laws against sex-based discrimination should only apply to biological women will lead to a raft of changes. They are expected to include who can access single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches, and who can join female teams in elite sport.
Previously, trans women were given the same rights as biological women, allowing them access to female-only spaces and groups. Although the judges said that trans women could not be discriminated against, the ruling means they will no longer be treated the same as people born female.
On Wednesday night, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the government watchdog, promised to rewrite its guidance to public bodies by the summer.
The NHS, National Police Chiefs Council and other bodies are also expected to update guidance soon.
The Supreme Court’s judgment was welcomed by JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author and prominent women’s rights campaigner, who said it would “protect the rights of women and girls across the UK”.
Women's rights activists have held up JK Rowling as a figurehead of their campaign
Women’s rights activists have held up JK Rowling as a figurehead of their campaign Credit: REUTERS/Lesley Martin
She added: “Spare a thought today for the UK employers, government departments, health boards, academic institutions and sporting bodies who’ve been breaking equality law to appease activist groups.
“So many HR manuals to pulp. So many out-of-court settlements to pay.”
Judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not the gender with which a person identifies.
The justices said that for the purpose of equality laws, transgender women were not legally women, even if they have a gender recognition certificate.
They found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the Armed Forces”.
Judges also ruled that sex is binary, meaning the central tenet of gender ideology – that there is a spectrum of gender identities – has no basis in law.
The ruling means that people who were born male can lawfully be excluded from women’s sports, changing rooms, lavatories, women-only support groups and women-only shortlists. The judgment will require a wholesale rewriting of rules across the public and private sectors.
Recommended
Handing down the judgment on whether sex-based protections should only apply to people who were born female, Lord Hodge, the court’s deputy president, said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.
The justices made clear that their decision made no difference to protections against discrimination for transgender people, and insisted it should not be interpreted as “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
Lord Hodge said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.”
Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said that interpreting sex as certificated would be ‘incoherent’
It followed a years-long legal battle between For Women Scotland, a campaign group, and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman.
Campaigners welcomed the ruling. Sex Matters, a women’s rights group, said: “We are delighted that For Women Scotland has been successful in its appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the position of the Scottish Government has been rejected.
“The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork.”
Rowling posted: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: “The Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as a woman and that the concept of sex is binary… Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.”
A government spokesman said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”
Labour Women’s Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, to take concrete action to ensure the judgment was fully reflected in all public sector guidance.
It said: “The Government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment.
“The ‘clarity and confidence’ the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women’s branches and committees.”
Feminist activists Helen Joyce, far left, and Maya Forstater, far right, celebrate with representatives from For Women Scotland at the Supreme Court Credit: Iain Masterton
In February, Wes Streeting told the Darlington nurses – eight nurses suing their trust after being forced to share a changing room with a transgender colleague – that he would wait until the Supreme Court ruling before issuing new guidance on single-sex spaces.
In a letter to them, seen by The Telegraph, he said: “Given the sensitivity of the issue, it is important to me that any changes made are credible and enduring…
“When I have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter, I will consider what steps to take.”
A Whitehall source said the Government’s legal department would now consider the ruling in full before publishing new guidance.
It is understood that the NPCC will consider the ruling before bringing out new guidance for the police. It follows criticism that some forces are allowing trans women – that is biological men – to strip-search vulnerable females.
EHRC ‘working at pace’ to update code of practice
Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairman of the EHRC, said: “We will take the outcome of this appeal into account in our ongoing work as the regulator of the Equality Act.
“That includes the development of our revised code of practice which, subject to ministerial approval, is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.
“We will be working at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment into the updated code, which supports service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice.
“Where this judgment impacts upon our other advice for duty-bearers, such as our single-sex services guidance, we will review it as a matter of urgency and alert users to where guidance has been withdrawn or needs to be updated.”
Despite the decision, trans activists insisted they would force Sir Keir to back their agenda.
Trans ruling seismic for everything from women’s lavatories to elite sport
Supreme Court decision likely to lead to policy changes with Government waiting for ruling before issuing guidance on single-sex spaces
www.telegraph.co.uk
Last edited:
UK going “This you?”
The famous faces who insisted ‘trans women are women’
From politicians to pop stars, many well-known names have had their say on the divisive issue
www.telegraph.co.uk
@A-dotty @Adeptus Astartes @dora_da_destroyer @Rekkapryde @Neo. The Only. The One. @the cac mamba @Uachet @Absolut @Sterling Archer @TheDarkCloud @Max Power @Pressure
Last edited:
The hateful and bigoted bag ladies have been proved right on sex
Politicians at Holyrood and Westminster owe women’s rights campaigners an apology after victory in their campaign to define what a woman is
www.thetimes.com
The hateful and bigoted bag ladies have been proved right on sex
Summarize
Politicians at Holyrood and Westminster owe women’s rights campaigners an apology after victory in their campaign to define what a woman is
Alex MassieWednesday April 16 2025, 5.00pm BST,
And so, at long last, an era of magical thinking comes to an end. Words retain their customary meaning and “sex” is a matter of biological fact not identification or some kind of fashionable conduit to fantastical self-realisation. That is the first thing to be said about For Women Scotland’s victory over Scottish ministers at the Supreme Court. Sex matters and gender identity cannot trump it.
We may nonetheless finally put to bed the mantra that “trans women are women” indistinguishable from natal women. In relation to the Equality Act they are not, and not even the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate changes that. A lot of trouble would have been avoided if the Supreme Court had been required to rule on this subject years ago.
• Rights groups celebrate Supreme Court ruling on trans women
For instance, it is an irony as deep as the Mariana Trench that, in the light of this judgment, the Scottish government’s ill-fated gender recognition reform bill would now be largely what its proponents erroneously claimed it was at the time: a chiefly administrative change that conferred no new rights upon trans people and had no great negative consequences for other people, most notably — and most usually — women.
At the same time as arguing this was a kind of tidying-up exercise, however, Nicola Sturgeon’s government also argued in court that the (now easy) acquisition of a GRC changed a person’s sex “for all purposes”. Consequently, this could not be a mere administrative change. On the contrary, it was a revolutionary prospectus forever altering the meaning of once-familiar terms such as “male” and “female”.
We know better than that now. Humpty Dumpty has been to court and Humpty Dumpty has lost.
• A historic victory — but did we need a court to tell us what a woman is?
But let us return to the beginning. In 2018, the Scottish parliament passed a bill requiring public bodies to ensure their governing boards were gender-balanced. They should have more women overseeing their operations. We could infer from this that the government believed women, as a class, brought something useful to the boardroom table and that, unless their presence was to be considered mere window-dressing, this something must be rooted in their womanhood. Their experience, their perspective, as women must matter.
But the Scottish government also decreed that a biological man considering himself a woman should be accepted as a woman for these purposes. In theory, then, an all-male board could be pleasingly gender-balanced if half the biological men on it possessed a gender recognition certificate. The experience, and perspective, of being a woman would also be open to, and claimed by, people born male. Being a woman, then, was really no different to being a man since men could now be defined as women. Consequently, logically, women really were only window-dressing.
For Women Scotland, the campaigning group now vindicated by events and the law alike, objected to this. Woman, in relation to the Equality Act and, indeed, as a matter of everyday common sense, must mean “biological woman” not “certified woman”. The Court of Session disagreed, siding with the Scottish government’s interpretation that sex was a matter of identification not biological reality.
Now the Supreme Court has, unanimously, tossed that judgment into the bin. For Women Scotland have won, although the fact this case reached the Supreme Court is a reminder that the Scottish government had a statable case. This was a case of statutory interpretation and an opaque and viscous example of the breed, for the interaction between the Equality Act (2010) and the Gender Recognition Act (2004) really was not clear.
Nevertheless, it is clear now. Despite this welcome clarity, however, we should not forget what the Scottish government argued over many years in many courtrooms. Sex should not longer be considered immutable and we should instead embrace the exciting possibilities flowing from the concept of “pregnant men” or the equally mind-melting proposition that a heterosexual man with a gender recognition certificate could henceforth be considered a bona fide, paid-up, lesbian.
Single-sex spaces, many of which exist for very good and very obvious reasons, were threatened by this gender woo-woo and public bodies, such as the NHS and the prison service, were captured by magical thinking of the most absurd kind. Far from “being kind” this was simply “being stupid”.
Now the women — for it was almost always women — who insisted that facts are indeed stubborn chiels that winna ding have prevailed. There are plenty of politicians at Holyrood, and Westminster, who owe them an apology. Of course I don’t actually expect Nicola Sturgeon or Humza Yousaf or John Swinney or Patrick Harvie or Alex Cole-Hamilton or Anas Sarwar to apologise for their part in this ludicrous saga but if they were bigger people they actually might.
All of these politicians insisted that words should be stripped of their customary meaning. All of them lied to the public when asserting that the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill was a merely administrative matter. All of them were mistaken when they argued that people can literally change sex. All of them are guilty.
Still, we should also acknowledge that the list of the culpable is by no means confined to Scotland. Ostensibly sensible and serious people all across the realm made fools of themselves on this issue. Figures such as Sir Keir Starmer and Harriet Harman and Penny Mordaunt and Maria Miller might now do well to spend some time with their consciences, examining their own past statements and their previous adherence to the metaphysical notion of “gender identity”.
Although a number of parliamentarians, most of them women of course, can look back on this episode and claim vindication, the chief mobilisation of opposition came from outside parliament. So a word, too, for the women of For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, Scottish Lesbians, the LGB Alliance and the policy collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, who have done the vast majority of the heavy lifting on this matter.
For a long time they were dismissed and slandered as ladies of a certain age and disposition whose concerns could only be rooted in bigotry. Hateful bag ladies, really, out of touch with the new reality and the kind of people who should have no place in the beautiful new Scotland of impeccably progressive and impossible thinking.
Organisations ‘must revisit policies’ after Supreme Court trans ruling
A judgment that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex means hospitals, prisons and businesses will have to review their guidelines
www.thetimes.com
Similar threads
