The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that the term “woman” only applies to biological females. This decision was praised by the ruling, center-left Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-supreme-court-equality-act-ruling-1.7511411
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled that the term “woman” only applies to biological females. This decision was praised by the ruling, center-left Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-supreme-court-equality-act-ruling-1.7511411
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I think it’s bad, going to result in an undeserved backlash against trans people and their rights, and also that it’s somewhat “funny” that these things always only target trans women and never trans men who are often just completely ignored which is what leads me to the conclusion it’s bigotry.
I’m unsure who benefits from this or what the tangible impacts this will have other than making life harder for trans women
It’s pretty despicable.
Fine by me.
Despicable and craven ruling, but expected for TERF island.
I don’t know enough about British law to understand whether this is a “correct” / reasonable interpretation, but courts would be pointless unless we took their decisions as prima facie evidence of what the law is.
I also don’t know what problems this might cause.
One thing I do know is that if the British people want to change this decision, they can, by normal electoral process. Unlike in the United States, courts in the UK are entirely bound by parliamentary legislation — there is no higher law that Parliament cannot override (no analogy to the Constitution in the US). So if the British public want to override this statutory interpretation, they can elect a government that will pass a law to do so, and the courts will have to follow the new law.
Transphobic & evil
Its trans issues I literally don’t care
Disclaimer, I don’t have much context on this outside of the headline, it’s seems very bad. I can’t imagine what rights we care to afford women who are AFAB vs women who are AMAB.
You may argue “abortion/contraceptive rights” but IMO I don’t think it matters if a person has a right they don’t use (so I would argue everyone should have those rights even if it doesn’t have an impact on 50% of the population). There may be additional medical rights I’m not considering but those would largely fall under the same premise. I mean hell that’s why the concept of “human rights” exists at all, that we broadly should not discriminate rights based on any characteristics.
I’m also curious if you have a link to Kier Starmer’s opinion on this as you’ve mentioned it was “praised” by Labour. I think it’s certainly possible as the party has completely abandoned trans people after Corbyn but I wanted clarity if you are referencing the party at large or just a small TERF cohort.
This is going to be detrimental long term to trans women in the UK and I hope our courts do not follow suit
I think it’s stupid that this is taken one way or another. They ruled that the word “woman” in a specific piece of legislation refers to the sex of a person at birth. It’s literally reaffirming the common definition of the concept of sex. The UK government could add words to the legislation to specifically refer to gender expression if they had the support to.
I’ll keep the rant about the misunderstanding of biology being prescriptive in my own head.
I expect nothing less from the
UKAirstrip OneTERF Island.They have moved from declining empire into a speed run into a poor nation. It’s not surprising that they’ve decided that instead of shitting on the Irish, they can move onto trans people.
The way things are going the best hopes they have is that India acquires everything in the UK and effectively reverse colonizes it. Or maybe the French will be kind and pick up the Norman invasion where they left off.
Seems like TERF Island is the Texas of Europe.
Despicable because TERF island is continuing its efforts to marginalize trans people. Idiotic because sex and gender are objectively distinct concepts.
Average for TERF island. I hope people realize this will result in the transvestigation of many non traditional cis women, often lesbian or POC. Though it’s bad because if how it effects trans people, it will have side effects
What is the meaningful impact of this?
TERF island is aptly named.
Honestly, this is a ridiculous ruling. Transwomen face exactly the same kind of violence and misogyny as ciswomen. There’s no serious justification for not treating them as women under the law.
I think it’s reflective of the general zeitgeist complicating its views on trans stuff. I think most people that are friendly want trans people to have rights, be respected, and enjoy life to the fullest extent they can. I think the urgency there is about defining “woman” such that trans women are included in that definition is… curious. I think most people are going to have an issue being told how to perceive and think about anything.
I have zero knowledge of British law or politics.
As an American I think conservatives are not being honest when it comes to trans issues. They say it is about sports, bathrooms and medical stuff but their goal is to eliminate trans individuals from society. Conservatives want the 1950s version of America and gender defined roles and presentation.
I don’t know what the legal consequences of this are, but as long as trans people are not harmed, I’m not concerned. If we use “woman” to denote a biological classification in some reasonable way, that can be useful. It is medically and socially important to know if someone is biologically a woman, and good laws may need to respect that.
Since I don’t know the current gender politics in the UK, I would just hope that they write laws which also reasonably protect trans people as a separate category.
I think that it’s going to suuuuuuuuck for standard-issue XX women who are presenting more masculine and I think that people are going to lose their ever-loving shit when a trans-man goes into the women’s toilets.
Both of these happen to some degree today, but I imagine it will get worse.
(I should note that I’m probably at odds with a lot of my fellow libs, in that I think that trans-women probably shouldn’t be allowed to play women’s sports. Probably. Hard data here is very hard to come by, so most of this relies on annecdotes and vibes and I could be off. The idea of people-with-penises going into women’s locker rooms makes me uncomfortable, but my parent’s generation flipped out about gay men in locker rooms and I have to say that this straight guy really, REALLY doesn’t give a crap, so whatevs).
So is this ruling basically to protect single sex spaces for women/females? With defining woman as meaning the female sex for purposes of “women only” spaces?
I think it’s harmful but not my country.
I think it’s good, it encourages greater accuracy in language instead of deliberate obfuscation, and it reflects how 90% of people use the terms. Women as a stand alone term, assumes biological women, if otherwise then just state so. Calling a trans-woman a trans-woman shouldn’t imply stigma in any capacity, there’s nothing wrong with being trans and so uttering the word is not a judgment or criticism. It shouldn’t be the norm to push trans people to hide their past or identity, that’s some fucked up shit. Trans people are worth everything I am, why hide who they are and then incur problems from miscommunication etc.
It’s pretty sad the Supreme Court has to rule on something so obvious.
That’s fucking stupid
Not a big fan of the government legislating people’s identities, expression and use of language, tbh. Glad I don’t live there but I can see it happening here too.
It is my understanding the UK is in general more transphobic than the US so I don’t necessarily place much importance on both political parties being in favor of the decision.
I think the claim made in the article that this isn’t going to negatively effect trans people is preposterous. I acknowledge that zero sum games exist and it’s possible this is an either trans people are negatively effected or cis people are negatively effected and we have to prioritize one or the other, but we shouldn’t pretend a prioritization isn’t happening. Pretending you aren’t disadvantaging someone when you are allows you to avoid the question of if doing so is justified or not.
That being said, I think it’s probably the case there are instances when we might want to distinguish between cis and trans individuals. I don’t inherently have a problem doing so, but we should be very concerned that we are treating people differently because we have to not because we want to. The article mentions this is in relation to counting the number of people on public sector boards and I don’t think that is a valid place to make a distinction.
Every time some transphobe wants to pretend trans people aren’t biological, they have to make up some absolutely clueless definition
It hurts trans and intersex people both of course. All it does is say one cis person scared of trans people is more important than all trans people with real problems
I think I wish the law was different, but that the Court has actually interpreted the law as written entirely accurately.
The Court has concluded that the Equality Act provides equal protections on the basis of sex and the possession of gender recognition certificates (and that relevant case precedents provide equivalent protection to trans people without a grc), but that parliament explicitly listed them as separate categories in need of protection and so they should be treated as separate categories. As such legislation that specifically talks about sex doesn’t take into account GRCs.
If the law needs changed then Parliament is the correct route, not the courts.
Also worth keeping in mind the relevant laws are super out of date and so the language predates modern social issues. The Equality Act was written about 18 years ago and came into force in 2010. The Gender Recognition Act is 21 years old and was written years before that. And the Sex Discrimination Act dates from the 70s.
The legislation absolutely needs updated, modernised fully. But the court system is the wrong avenue for that in the UK, they’re fully bound by parliament.
They ruled the term “women,” as used in a specific law, means biological women. They did made no other judgement other than that.
Single-sex spaces should be protected in law and should always be protected by this government. Considering the decision does not cause disadvantage to trans people, this ruling shouldn’t be anything more than obvious.
I think it’s Orwellian. There’s no need to make this distinction, because the term “trans women” is a term that already exists and already differentiates between cis women. So the question should really be, why even bother making this ruling?
Historically only one type of governmental regime has attempted to control language, and they’re fascists regimes. I think the question you should be asking yourself is who is this ruling meant to benefit. If you can’t think of an answer, then you have your answer. It isn’t meant to benefit, it’s meant to cause harm.
It is a step into a direction. I may not like it but it also gives clarity. I trust our fellow Europeans to maintain impartial judicature. If they looked at the facts and made a decision based on these facts, it does not matter if I like it or not. Until it gets repealed it is the law.
That being said, I think it is an attempt to give clarity over an issue that nobody was able to make heads and tails out of for a while. The definitions presented by the LGBT+ community may be morally correct but they are also fuzzy. Depending on whom you talk to the same definition on trans terminology may have different meanings. As such some make as in this case a clear difference between women, trans women while putting trans men and men into this turns the entire thing into a spectrum. Maintaining a difference in so far that trans women are not being represented by women. Others maintain the definition of self identification is all that matters. This confusion had to be solved in one way or another. In my opinion is a cis man, I think this ruling could have been prevented through proper communication internally and externally.
It’s shit, but this is what we’ve come to expect from TERF Island.
Solidarity with all British trans people, and I’m atheist-praying that this dumbshit moral panic will peter out soon.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I think it’s BS! If someone identifies as a woman who are they to say they’re not??
What do I think about the most powerful institutions officially upholding bigotry and disenfranchisement of a minority group that is already target with violence by law?
I think it’s bad for everyone. Including women who were just reduced to their biological offerings. This is a win for the anti-abortion crowd, though. Well done, Britain.
Fine. A trans-woman is a trans-woman and the distinction is valid. Especially in a time when using the term “female” has become almost a slur.
I insist trans-folks have every equal right and opportunity, but see nothing pejorative or negative about incorporating the distinction of their reality into a trans- prefix. Any argument otherwise seems to want to shove the fact into a closet, and there should never be any shame in being Trans.
That’s not what they ruled. They ruled that the Equality Act specifically and in particular defined “woman” that way. They also explicitly mentioned that this definition is not fundamental, it’s part of that particular law, and that Parliament could change the law at any time if they wanted to.
It’s still not good, but it’s a narrow legal ruling based on the law as it was written. I don’t think it was based on bias. This is actually what legal rulings are supposed to look like.
TERF Island continues to be a shithole country
It’s the obvious ruling
Honestly? I don’t really care. Far as I’m concerned, trans rights is a fringe issue that doesn’t effect the vast majority of the working class.. Most of the issues that seem to inflame everyone on this matter can be dismissed for good reasons, the status quo is fine, and activists trying to achieve more concrete “rights” as they’ve taken something that was usually fuzzy enough to drive a truck through in practice and made it center stage. Specifically:
Bathrooms: Who cares? Before now no rules were necessary, and frankly in practice nobody really cares who uses what bathroom. I’m a dude and I’ve used women’s bathrooms on dozens of occasions (usually because the male bathroom is busy or disgusting) with zero consequences. Could I see it being awkward at 2 am at nightclub on Saturday nights? Sure, but that’s the least weird thing there. And I’ve seen women step into the hallowed sanctum of the Jack’s, and they didn’t seem to suddenly get sexually assaulted. This isn’t something that needs to be legislated one way or the other and should simply be ignored.
Sports: this is, what 10 people in a nation of millions? Give the pearl clutches what they want and move on.
Children: Frankly, I think the conservatives are right here. It’s already not right in my book that we’re giving Ritalin and other psycho-active drugs to children. “Pausing puberty” is a step too far. In my opinion the treatment is worse than the problem, there’s no evidence that it prevents depression or suicide and the NHS (not exactly a bastion of reactionary politics) agrees.
In my opinion, all of this is just divide and rule politics by the far right and far left to destroy a potential coalition between the working and middle classes. Accepting that there’s a debate in the first place is the first place is part of the problem.
Speaking from a language perspective, the last few years there’s been absurd linguistic contortions with clumsy assemblages like “people with penises” and “people with vaginas”. Given how important this distinction is to most people, over and above socially defined gender, perhaps we can agree to replace these clumsy phrases with simple words like… “Men” and “Women”. If a person is trans, live and let live with the ambiguity.
Since when do courts determine how words are used in everyday life?
I find it noteworthy that it’s mainly trans women who are seen as a threat.
Considering you can’t even define “biological females” in a way that doesn’t exclude someone we would typically consider a cis woman…stupid. Also, literally who cares. Trans women are just trying to live their lives. Don’t people have actual problems? Hobbies?
It seems like the only way they could have ruled on it. The text of the Equality Act explicitly says that a protected characteristic is “sex.” Not gender or gender identity or gender expression. The only gender related protected characteristic is “gender reassignment.”
It goes on to list situations in which single sex services should not be interpreted as discrimination based on sex. Explanatory notes here.
It’s bigoted and actually has no legal basis.
It doesn’t change the fact that trans women ARE women 🤷♀️.
I’m horrified as this will be used to legitimise a lot of hatred.