Yet another case of a British institution making decisions about trans people without letting them participate, but allowing 'gender-critical' transphobes to, and fucking them over.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)
UK Politics
3652 readers
557 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The courts can only interpret the law. The wording of the law refers to 'sex' i.e. Biological sex, not gender, hence the ruling.
Only the media is talking about the 'definition of a woman'. This is not what the ruling is on.
That isn't to say that the equalities act shouldn't be changed to also include gender, I strongly believe it should and hope against hope that the Labour government will, but it is not in the supreme court's power to enact new law.
Lack of understanding of the legal system leads to a lot of misdirected anger, I'm on your side, but be angry at the right people.
The Supreme Court can only work with the laws as written. The legislation defines women by sex at birth, so they are right to make the ruling they have. Those opposed should direct their efforts to Parliament, who can re-write the law. This ruling is a positive step as it sets out clearly how the law currently stands.
How is a ruling that just removed protections trans people had yesterday a 'positive step'?
It didn’t remove protections trans people had yesterday. It clarified that they didn’t have those protections under that law yesterday, because the law in question defined women by sex. Now that is understood, further legislation to add protections can be proposed. The ruling also pointed out that there are also existing protections under another law.
Practically they did have them though, albeit under a legal grey area.
The ruling also pointed out that there are also existing protections under another law.
They said you can't discriminate against trans people on the basis of gender reassignment. You can, however, simultaneously discriminate against trans people on the basis of assigned gender at birth and they can be excluded from sex-segregated spaces of their assigned gender if they look too much like the other sex. So the Supreme Court just ruled on the question of 'which toilet should a trans person use' by saying 'neither'. This is what happens when you only consult with trans hate groups like Sex Matters and don't consult with trans people.
i mean the supreme court purposely went out of their way to only consult with bigots and refuse to allow trans people to speak fuck them.
Great job. Now trans and cis people are going to get harassed for being in the wrong bathrooms by the gender police.
Fantastic work by team bigot.
Now trans and cis people are going to get harassed for being in the wrong bathrooms by the gender police.
They said on the radio that the changes in bathroom laws in the US have mainly impacted butch lesbians. This is going to get messy.
Already happening sadly, and not by accident either. It's not just about rolling back trans rights, it's about dragging us back to narrow and restrictive ideas of sex and gender in general.
Just to be clear, this was an interpretation of existing law from like 15 years ago, not new legislation or anything. Now that a ruling has been made then it should be clear what needs to be changed in order to bring things more up to date.
I wonder what these morons think about intersex people or is that concept beyond a primary school child's understanding so not considered by the judges?
It's a group funded by JK Rowling, she is laser-focused on trans woman and so intersex people and trans men are an after thought, if they are even given a thought.
Just wait till trans men using the ladies bathrooms etc. causes uproar.
IMO this is the definitive way to demonstrate the absurdity of their position; essentially coordinated mobbing of "women's spaces", by AFAB/FtM trans/intersex groups.
I am however, also aware that it requires marginalised groups of a marginalised group to paint a big target on themselves, and thus understand why it's not been massively used to protest this dumb bigotry.
The judges can only consider the law as written, which uses a sex at birth definition. They can’t make new stuff up out of nowhere. That’s Parliament’s job.
This legal case was largely funded by JK Rowling aswell AFAIK.
Please don’t buy her books or watch her shows/movies, because you’re literally financially contributing to this. (Piracy is fine)
man jk rowlings grave is going to be the most fertilised plot of soil in all of the uk
look at these freaks cheering this on
That was my first thought as well. These sad people who are so proud of getting up in other people’s business and celebrate making peoples lives miserable.
getting harassed by drunken males in male facilities, which she will have to go into, despite her obvious femininity.