Supreme Court makes ruling on definition of Woman

[Inka]

Indeed all men @CliffH That includes every male person no matter their identity. The venom on display has been shocking.

 

[louisew]

I found some of the discussion lacking @everydayupsanddowns and/or it just left me wanting to check further details, which is why I read the ruling. I found the actual judgement very fair and balanced. I could also follow its logic. As an example, it gave the hypothetical situation of a woman asking for same sex care, which she’s entitled to do. Treating Sex in the EA as meaning GRC sex would mean that the woman could be treated by a male (because they were a trans woman with a GRC) but not by a trans man, ie a natal female. Clearly, the hypothetical woman in this example would want another female person.

It also talked about the PC of pregnancy and maternity and how it was clear that the Sex mentioned in that referred to (biological) women. The whole judgement was a clarification of what was meant by Sex in the EA, but it also sought to reassure trans people that they would lose no protection and gave specific examples of hypothetical discrimination and what section of the Act would cover that.

I realise I didn’t respond to your mention of non-binary people earlier. As far as I understand they come under the trans umbrella, so they’d be covered by the Gender Reassignment section and also by the Sex section, eg a non-binary female person would still receive the protection of the Pregnancy and Maternity section.

Anyway, do have a read. I know I always sigh when someone says that because judgements are always long, but I think this is a reasonably simple and comprehensible judgement, which it’s possible to read through even if skimming some of it, and understand the points.

Yes, you’re quite right that policies will have to be adjusted in the NHS, etc. They and others were told their policies potentially breached the EA but they preferred to listen to Stonewall Law rather than the actual law. It was always pretty obvious that Sex in the EA had to be referring to biological sex, but Stonewall misrepresented the law. They also redefined homosexuality, and I’m extremely pleased the judgement has done something to address that.

I see what you’re saying but I think that now with this clarity there will be no or little conflict of rights. No longer will equality law be misrepresented; single sex spaces will be properly managed where necessary; and both women and trans people will be protected - which was the original purpose of the Act.

The trans woman you mention with cancer will, presumably be placed in a single room, treated with respect and addressed in the way she requests. This preserves her dignity, and it also preserves the single sex ward for women who need it. As for the gym, mine has single sex changing rooms. I have two trans women friends, one older than me, one younger, so covering a wide range of time. Both use male toilets and change in the male changing rooms or a private changing room that’s available poolside (not sure who it’s actually for but it was offered to one of them once).

The terms trans women and trans men? A not insignificant percentage of the population get them muddled up anyway, ie think a trans man is a male person who identifies as a woman. Yes, they could be confusing, but I don’t know what an alternative would be or if one is needed/wanted.

Whether a trans woman has surgery or not is not the issue. Most trans women don’t have surgery anyway. Many women require or want single sex facilities. This is not because they hate male persons of whatever identity! It’s for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety. Most men are lovely. My brother is lovely, my male friends are lovely, my gay male friends are lovely - but I wouldn’t want to undress in front of any of them. That is not because I think all men are predators. It’s for privacy and comfort. Women are entitled to single sex spaces. They are also entitled to rape crisis centres that exclude male people.

Women are also entitled to exist as a separate group. Do you think there’d ever be a ruling about what a man was? That’s a genuine question not a sneer or a dig. The answer, of course, is No.

The recent ‘trans’ activism has done a lot of harm to women, but it’s also done a lot of harm to the quiet majority of trans people who just want to go about their lives in peace. Hopefully, with this legal clarity, we’ll all be able to do that in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. The nastiness and discrimination against women by some of these activists is shocking. And for a lesbian woman to be told she is ‘has’ to date trans women, including those with male genitalia is shocking !

 

[Amity Island]

I'm a Clinical Psychologist: many of us have trans colleagues and almost all of us sometimes have trans clients. Traditionally it's a very left-wing profession, with a strong history of challenging the psychiatric orthodoxy. This means that it tends to attract radical feminists (of which I regard myself as being one) and so most of us have a great deal of sympathy for people on both sides of this debate.

My overriding view is that the onus is for men as a whole (including me) to accept our responsibility for the violence that women and trans people fear: violence in society is almost entirely perpetrated by men. That includes 'micro-aggressions' such as 'mansplaining'.

Saying, "It's not all men" misses the point: it is all men, because we all can and need to do more to reduce (fear of) male violence, however wonderful we might think our own behaviour is towards women and trans people. For example, whilst we still need to advise teenage girls to be careful when out in the dark, even more we need to tell teenage boys that they have to do everything they can (including 'policing' their friends' speech and actions and not hanging around in groups) to enable teenage girls to feel safer in the dark.

The question is how far are people expected to go in terms of what they believe about the world? Should we prevent freedom of speech? freedom of thought? I find the people I talk to today are basically saying you can't say anything to anyone about anything for fear of losing your job for someone working hard to find offence. It's one thing to deliberately offend or upset someone, but we now live in a time where almost anything can be found offensive in some way to those willing to go the extra mile to find offence.

The example I referred to was that employers are not just asking for people to be civilised and respectful of others (which is a perfectly reasonable expectation and to me is the minimum standard, for people's behaviour in any civilised society), but things have been pushed beyond that. Think back at forms you've filled in over your life, they used to require things like name, title, occupation, sex (m/f), etc. The "sex" (m/f) question got swapped for "gender" many years ago perhaps 10 years ago or so? Since then people have been forced to accept and adopt the word gender for their sex. My understanding is that gender and sex are in fact different things, but "sex" and "gender" were intentionally and misleadingly mixed into one definition. Anyone who has had the courage to challenge this flagrant misinformation has been abused, threatened and all sorts of other things, so we've all acquiesced.

The gender/sex definition is a good example of how misinformation becomes accepted as truth over time, when it's incessantly pushed and publicised enough, leaving many without a voice to challenge it through fear of ramifications.

 

[Amity Island]

In the news today.

It is "disgraceful" that campaigners who won a landmark Supreme Court gender ruling are facing death threats, MPs warned. The UK's highest court last week confirmed that the definition of a woman in equality law is based on biological sex in a victory for campaign group For Women Scotland.

But the three women who spearheaded the legal battle have been hit by a deluge of abuse in the wake of the decision. Tory shadow women's minister Mims Davies said: “The brave women behind For Women Scotland won a landmark victory in the Supreme Court.

“But instead of being celebrated, they’ve been met with death threats, vile misogynistic abuse, and appalling attacks on their livelihoods. This is an absolute disgrace. No woman should face hatred for defending our sex-based rights.

Outrage as women who won Supreme Court gender battle face death threats

MPs and campaigners hit out at abuse of women who won Supreme Court fight.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Inka]

And at the protest in London this weekend, trans people were carrying placards calling for feminists to be hanged @Amity Island This has been par for the course for a number of years. All women ever wanted was to have their rights upheld and their legal right to single sex spaces upheld.

 

[Inka]

"sex" and "gender" were intentionally and misleadingly mixed into one definition

Yes, that’s exactly right @Amity Island Activists wanted to replace sex with gender in law - hence the vicious anger we’ve seen after the perfectly reasonable, fair and balanced judgement from the Supreme Court. They sought to erase women as a sex group.

 

[Amity Island]

And at the protest in London this weekend, trans people were carrying placards calling for feminists to be hanged @Amity Island This has been par for the course for a number of years. All women ever wanted was to have their rights upheld and their legal right to single sex spaces upheld.

It seems that this drive for individual rights (creating labels) has actually caused more division than achieving the aim of bringing everyone together. I just want to get on with others, see some peace and happiness.

 

[Inka]

That would require mutual respect @Amity Island I’m not hopeful because the loudest, most vicious voices drown out the reasonable trans voices. Other undesirable groups have also joined in, keen to take advantage of a chance to cause strife and bully and threaten women with impunity.

 

[CliffH]

The question is how far are people expected to go in terms of what they believe about the world? Should we prevent freedom of speech? freedom of thought? I find the people I talk to today are basically saying you can't say anything to anyone about anything for fear of losing your job for someone working hard to find offence. It's one thing to deliberately offend or upset someone, but we now live in a time where almost anything can be found offensive in some way to those willing to go the extra mile to find offence.

The example I referred to was that employers are not just asking for people to be civilised and respectful of others (which is a perfectly reasonable expectation and to me is the minimum standard, for people's behaviour in any civilised society), but things have been pushed beyond that. Think back at forms you've filled in over your life, they used to require things like name, title, occupation, sex (m/f), etc. The "sex" (m/f) question got swapped for "gender" many years ago perhaps 10 years ago or so? Since then people have been forced to accept and adopt the word gender for their sex. My understanding is that gender and sex are in fact different things, but "sex" and "gender" were intentionally and misleadingly mixed into one definition. Anyone who has had the courage to challenge this flagrant misinformation has been abused, threatened and all sorts of other things, so we've all acquiesced.

The gender/sex definition is a good example of how misinformation becomes accepted as truth over time, when it's incessantly pushed and publicised enough, leaving many without a voice to challenge it through fear of ramifications.

I know several trans people who would be very upset at you implying that they're "willing to go the extra mile to find offence". What you're saying reminds me of how, in the past, sexist and racist 'jokes' were dismissed as 'just a bit of fun'. It's not for non-oppressed people (let me guess: cis male? white? straight?) to tell oppressed people what they can and can't "find offence" about.

The reality is, I think, that our society's still learning how best to accommodate trans people - and is bound to make mistakes along the way. My sympathy regarding the current Judgment leans more towards the side of women than of trans people - and yet I think it's my job (as a man and as a Psychologist) to hold all oppressed groups in mind and to ensure I'm doing whatever I can to resist attempts to oppress those groups further. For example, how welcoming do you think a trans person would find this Forum?

 

[trophywench]

It's an odd thing - I remember working late one evening as was a male colleague who was about 10 years younger than I. He asked what time I'd be there to, I mentioned a time and he said Well I'll hang on till you've finished cos you don't want to be walking into that carpark on your own. Thanks said I. Subsequently considered what he'd said cos TBH it had honestly never even occurred to me that someone might mug me or worse - though I spose there were lots of places a miscreant could quite easily lurk without me noticing between here and there.

If you needed to be over careful at something like 6pm why on earth are 'they' allowed to make you work until 5 or 5.30pm summer and winter!

 

[nonethewiser]

Those few that defaced memorials in Parliament Square you do wonder what that is supposed to achieve, those dedicated to justice & freedom like Mandela Churchill Fawcett, mind boggles really.

 

[Amity Island]

I know several trans people who would be very upset at you implying that they're "willing to go the extra mile to find offence". What you're saying reminds me of how, in the past, sexist and racist 'jokes' were dismissed as 'just a bit of fun'. It's not for non-oppressed people (let me guess: cis male? white? straight?) to tell oppressed people what they can and can't "find offence" about.

The reality is, I think, that our society's still learning how best to accommodate trans people - and is bound to make mistakes along the way. My sympathy regarding the current Judgment leans more towards the side of women than of trans people - and yet I think it's my job (as a man and as a Psychologist) to hold all oppressed groups in mind and to ensure I'm doing whatever I can to resist attempts to oppress those groups further. For example, how welcoming do you think a trans person would find this Forum?

Hi Cliff,

My comment about how life is now is not about anyone or any group, be it gender, race, beliefs etc. it's literally about life today for everyone. We can't say anything to anyone about anything now many are going the extra mile to take offence at anything. I made a compliment to someone last week about how the experience they were getting during their training will put them in good stead for later life. They took it as an insult, like I meant they didn't know what they are doing. It's everything Cliff, literally everything that's been taken as offensive. As I said, people are going the extra mile to seek out and twist things into offence.

Oh and btw. I completely agree about those types of so called things said in jest, which are actually awful and nasty. I'd be the first to step in and say something if that ever happened.

 

[CliffH]

Hi Cliff,

My comment about how life is now is not about anyone or any group, be it gender, race, beliefs etc. it's literally about life today for everyone. We can't say anything to anyone about anything now many are going the extra mile to take offence at anything. I made a compliment to someone last week about how the experience they were getting during their training will put them in good stead for later life. They took it as an insult, like I meant they didn't know what they are doing. It's everything Cliff, literally everything that's been taken as offensive. As I said, people are going the extra mile to seek out and twist things into offence.

Oh and btw. I completely agree about those types of so called things said in jest, which are actually awful and nasty. I'd be the first to step in and say something if that ever happened.

I wonder if it's more that people who historically have put up with micro-aggressions now (quite rightly) are less prepared to stand for it. That can be uncomfortable when we're guilty (often unwittingly) of such a microaggression and have it brought to our attention. It takes a degree of humility to be able to say, "Yes, that was insensitive of me: I'll aim not to do it again".

For example, last week a colleague sent me a text pointing out that I'd been guilty of 'mansplaining'. I was mortified: I didn't think I'd ever do that! However, she was right, of course. Interestingly, she said that she'd thought twice about messaging me, because initially she didn't want to make "a fuss". I think it's great though that people like her are increasingly prepared to make a fuss!

 

[Amity Island]

I wonder if it's more that people who historically have put up with micro-aggressions now (quite rightly) are less prepared to stand for it. That can be uncomfortable when we're guilty (often unwittingly) of such a microaggression and have it brought to our attention. It takes a degree of humility to be able to say, "Yes, that was insensitive of me: I'll aim not to do it again".

For example, last week a colleague sent me a text pointing out that I'd been guilty of 'mansplaining'. I was mortified: I didn't think I'd ever do that! However, she was right, of course. Interestingly, she said that she'd thought twice about messaging me, because initially she didn't want to make "a fuss". I think it's great though that people like her are increasingly prepared to make a fuss!

Whatever the reasons, the result is the same. Many now make little or no effort to talk to others and the quality of conversations has gone down to tik tok, weather and "morning". It's simply ended any meaningful conversation and made it difficult to make friends through fear of causing offence over things that shouldn't offend anyone, like healthy, friendly conversation.

Now, add this into other trends such as, eating out "at home", working "from home", watching movies "at home", speaking to your doctor or a nurse "at home", texting, email, teams, shops closing, pubs closing, social clubs closing, the trend to demolish high street to make way for grassed and paved areas, the closure of libraries, community centres, public sport centres, it leaves us little opportunity to have face to face human interaction and real relationships.

I call all this the anti-human agenda.

 

[CliffH]

Whatever the reasons, the result is the same. Many now make little or no effort to talk to others and the quality of conversations has gone down to tik tok, weather and "morning". It's simply ended any meaningful conversation and made it difficult to make friends through fear of causing offence over things that shouldn't offend anyone, like healthy, friendly conversation.

Now, add this into other trends such as, eating out "at home", working "from home", watching movies "at home", speaking to your doctor or a nurse "at home", texting, email, teams, shops closing, pubs closing, social clubs closing, the trend to demolish high street to make way for grassed and paved areas, the closure of libraries, community centres, public sport centres, it leaves us little opportunity to have face to face human interaction and real relationships.

I call all this the anti-human agenda.

I call it the 'different generations having different social rules and expectations' agenda. You sound almost as much like Victor Meldrew as I do at times .

 

[Amity Island]

I call it the 'different generations having different social rules and expectations' agenda. You sound almost as much like Victor Meldrew as I do at times .

View attachment 35002

I just like to able to talk to people face to face. There is a human connection when us humans meet. Everything is distance this or that, work or eat out at home, remote this or that, text, email, teams, the list goes on. There is more to it than simply a generation thing, because in generations gone by, they always had human connection. Now on the rare occasions we meet, conversation has been taken to trivia away from meaningful conversation.

 

[Amity Island]

@CliffH
You understand where I am coming from. There is something about being able to look into the eyes of the soul. Something connects on a deeper spiritual level.

 

[nonethewiser]

Whatever the reasons, the result is the same. Many now make little or no effort to talk to others and the quality of conversations has gone down to tik tok, weather and "morning". It's simply ended any meaningful conversation and made it difficult to make friends through fear of causing offence over things that shouldn't offend anyone, like healthy, friendly conversation.

Now, add this into other trends such as, eating out "at home", working "from home", watching movies "at home", speaking to your doctor or a nurse "at home", texting, email, teams, shops closing, pubs closing, social clubs closing, the trend to demolish high street to make way for grassed and paved areas, the closure of libraries, community centres, public sport centres, it leaves us little opportunity to have face to face human interaction and real relationships.

I call all this the anti-human agenda.

You go into any gp hospital or dentist waiting room there's people just looking down at phone screens making no attempt to chat, not even a smile sometimes.

It is a sad state of affairs must admit @Amity Island

 

[Amity Island]

You go into any gp hospital or dentist waiting room there's people just looking down at phone screens making no attempt to chat, not even a smile sometimes.

It is a sad state of affairs must admit @Amity Island

I'll make a point each day to smile and engage with total strangers, strike up a conversation as opportunities arise, might be as simple as someone picking a cauliflower off the shelf in a shop. Yesterday I got talking for about 15 minutes to an elderly couple it was great. It's quite often an exchange of life experiences and knowledge. They were talking about caravan ownership and their travels.

 

[CliffH]

I just like to able to talk to people face to face. There is a human connection when us humans meet. Everything is distance this or that, work or eat out at home, remote this or that, text, email, teams, the list goes on. There is more to it than simply a generation thing, because in generations gone by, they always had human connection. Now on the rare occasions we meet, conversation has been taken to trivia away from meaningful conversation.

Perhaps this generation has invented an alternative form of universal communication? Some of my younger clients prefer online work to face-to-face, presumably because they're much more used to communicating everything (including difficult thoughts and feelings) via a screen.

However, perhaps it wasn't so different in the past? I remember writing things down ('Dear John' letters?) for people when I found it too hard to actually say those things face to face.