UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex – live updates

9 comments

1. That is incredibly stupid of them, they really should have relied upon the scientific consensus of biologists and gender researchers which very much disagree with this definition. It’s sad to see the UK taking such a bigoted stance against trans people.

2. > The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argued they only apply to people that are born female

   Gender certificate, provides sex-based protections?? I thought sex and gender were different?

3. Dissapointed but not surprised. There is a reason the place is called TERF island.

   Also the comments that are trying to sell this as a win for science or whatever are really confused, this pretty literally goes against the current scientific consensus, and enjoying other people’s suffering makes you all weird.

   Edit: Scientific consensus as in sex is not so easily defined as they would make you think, and they recommend against making such decisions based on something that can’t be defined.

4. A sad capitulation to the reactionary anti-transgender movement. But it’s not like the UK has been a very good bastion of human rights when it comes to trans people as of late

5. What does that mean? Chromosomal? Hormonal? Presence or absence of certain organs? Birth sex? Primary and/or secondary sex characteristics? Something else?

6. Completely logic tbf.

   Why would a trans woman have period leave for example if she can’t have periods?

   That’s what this law is really about, it doesn’t delete the trans people status and they are still protected under the discrimination law.

   It mostly talks about rights that are related to things exclusive to your biological Sex.

7. Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology taught at school could tell you the same. No need for supreme courts here 😂There exist biological males and biological females, period.

8. This entire thread is massively disappointing. Bad faith arguments based on people gaining imaginary benefits when all they want is recognition for how they themselves feel. A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves.

9. The ruling is limited to the definitions of man, woman and sex strictly within the context of the Equality Act 2010, but you can likely bet Ministers and pressure groups will interpret it as applying to the entire corpus of law.

   It also raises questions about what trans people who ‘pass’ should do if using an organisation with toilets or changing facilities that are strictly segregated by sex and don’t have alternatives – should they ‘out’ themselves by using the facility associated with their AGAB, use the other facility and hope no-one notices, or regard themselves as permanently excluded from all single sex spaces?

Comments are closed.