Starmer welcomes ‘real clarity’ from Supreme Court on definition of a woman

19 comments

1. Other than the “I am going to piss on terfs” and “the only good terf is a dead terf” brigade, most people are going to have a similar response.

   The protests will not have helped. It does not scream “peaceful vulnerable people needing safe spaces” to be represented by people holding posters describing an intention to urinate on women who approve of the supreme court judgement.

2. Can’t wait for when this to all backfire and they realise this means big burly trans men will be required to use the ladies toilets and changing rooms now.

   Also they still haven’t bothered to explain how you actually “check” this, do we require ID now to use the toilets?

   Or is it just based on looks and how feminine you look? How many cis women are going to be called out just for being butch or non normative looks? And accused of being trans?

3. The court has made absolutely nothing clear. We’re hanging in a state of limbo right now until the goverment invents a way to actually stop trans women living as women.

   Given that the “best” solution so far has been to hope the public accosts anyone they think looks trans… things are *less* clear than ever.

4. A core element of the decision was that legislation was not clear, so if I were a Parliamentarian I would not be congratulating myself at this point.

   It arises out of a situation where GRC’s are rare (because they are not at all easy to get) and the effect of GRC’s both unclear and not to anyone’s liking. So maybe that might be useful to look at.

5. This is completly unclear! The supreme court judgement effectivly unmade proof of womanhood all together, and rendered it based only on appearance for any woman.

   Previously, it was rightly regarded as “if its an important service its down to what your legal identification says, for anything else its effectivly a personal choice of the individual and provider”.

   However, a GRC sets legal identification to female or male and does not self disclose on any proof of identity.

   But a GRC no longer can be considered to change gender, regardless of what the identifiying documents say.

   Therefore, no proof of identity can now be used to proof “womanhood”, and there is no available way to check it for anyone. This is so stupid.

   Its not clear its just closed the entire system.

   And the only way to fix it is either to undo the stupid court judgement that is less well thougth out than trumps gender policies, or destroy the existence of trans people all together.

   Based on what ministers including the primeminister have been saying, they seem more likely to be for the later than the former.

   This whole thing is irrational and inane, its worse and less sensible gender policy than we have ever had, its damn 1800s attitudes.

6. He is clearly moving Labour away from the the social left that young people support then. It is a bold move and will push more young people towards the Lib Dems and the Greens. I suppose he is hoping to catch disenfranchised Tory voters and to recapture older Labour voters who were turned off by Labour’s previous socially left wing politics. It will shut up the likes of the Daily Mail too, who have been baying for his blood for his opinion on this.

7. [removed]

8. Starmer might have a different definition of the word clear to most people. The fact the court managed to word the entire ruling in a way that it’s led to people not understanding what’s happened and a good chunk of people being confused, is pretty damming evidence on that front.

9. Starmer continues to be a coward on this issue and notches up another point in Labours move to be the new “nasty party” then.

10. I’ve been out as trans and living openly as a woman for five years now. In that time, the vast majority of people I’ve met have shown kindness, warmth, and generosity I never thought possible when I was still closeted.

    I’ve spent tens of thousands of pounds — money I could barely afford – undergone painful, irreversible surgeries, and endured personal heartbreak. I did all of it because I believed what successive governments told me: that transitioning was something I could do, that society recognized and supported it. Gender Dysphoria is real – and transitioning is the treatment. But now, it’s painfully clear that there are those in power who would rather I didn’t exist at all.

    I’m one of around 8,000 people in the UK who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate. That document once felt like a promise – that I had a place in this country, and a future worth building.

    I’m a parent. I work hard. I try to be kind. I’m not a predator. I just want to live my life like anyone else – to see my wonderful, supportive children grow and thrive. And to meet the challenges life gave me with dignity.

    Just a week ago, that felt like a reasonable hope. Today, I find myself seriously contemplating suicide. I’ve done nothing wrong. What’s happening now is inhumane, and it’s cruel.

    There may be TERFs who read this and feel victorious. If this is what brings them joy, then shame on them – because nobody wins here. This is not protection. This is misery, inflicted to please a loud, well-funded, and toxic minority.

11. [removed]

12. >Equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said the ruling means transgender women should use male toilets but suggested businesses should ensure “they have appropriate provision in place” for all customers.

    We’re not going to do that. Trans women are not going to be blocked from using the correct bathroom. Sorry. You’ll have to put every last one of us in prison.

13. Why are we wasting so much time and money on this when there are far more pressing issues in society that need dealing with?

14. I seem to recall a lot of people saying labour would be good for trans people before the election, I wonder if they’ll still try and tell us that now

15. Cool. Will you welcome real clarity on butch looking women getting checked, hassled and otherwise abused for looking not quite feminine enough?

    Nah, why actually think about shit when you can get headlines and continue the downward spiral of the UK.

16. It’s unintentionally revealing that all of these politicians and campaigners seem to focus specifically on trans women and not trans men.

    Much like with homophobia, a lot of this seems to be rooted in the incorrect belief that being trans is some form of deviancy and deviant behaviour is predominantly done by men. It’s not about “respecting the science” and simply boils down to these people sincerely believing that a person cannot be trans and that there’s always some malicious ulterior motive.

    Starmer already scrapped his pre-election promise of self-ID for trans people because he’s more concerned with playing the same games the Tories were around which identity politics makes them most electable. This is not a Prime Minister concerned with societal progression or improving disadvantaged peoples’ lives.

17. Think this judgement has brought the opposite of clarity for anyone.

    The ruling as I understand it, based on my reading of the case and the media commentary around it, is:

    * Sex in the Equality Act does not include sex as changed (per s9 of the Gender Recognition Act) by a Gender Recognition Certificate.
    * Consequently, if you have established a single-sex space, it necessarily excludes transgender people transitioning to that sex – i.e. a men’s club will exclude transgender men.
    * You can exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces of their natal sex on the basis of gender reassignment; a trans woman may be seen as looking too much like a woman to go into the men’s bathroom and vice versa.
    * One paragraph in the judgement cites that a trans person might use certain facilities of their transitioned-to sex if they judge it to be something that will cause less issues, without explicitly stating whether this is allowed or not.

    Prior to this, the rule was that since having a GRC is confidential, single-sex spaces were broadly open to trans people transitioning to that sex unless they were specifically excluded. If it was a proportionate thing to do for a legitimate aim, you could exclude transgender women from a domestic violence shelter, for instance. Generally, trans people could enter spaces of their transitioned-to sex unless they were specifically told not to.

    Now, the law is that single-sex spaces *must* exclude transgender people transitioning to that sex and *can* exclude transgender people transitioning from that sex. A woman’s bathroom at the office must not allow transgender women in, and probably shouldn’t allow transgender men in either.

    This is reasonably-ish clear with known single-sex spaces. Workplaces have a requirement to provide single-sex bathrooms, for instance, so at the office it’ll either be “use the bathroom of your natal sex” or “use the disabled toilet”. However, for others it is less clear. Are the toilets at the pub or cafe or stadium single-sex spaces by law, or just convention? Women will use the men’s when the toilet is busy. A man might bring his daughter into the women’s if needed.

    This can go one of two ways – either every generally-sexed space is single-sex, or trans people must ask at every venue to confirm which space they are legally permitted to use. It may also be the case that the judgement is not saying “trans people must be excluded from single-sex spaces” so much as “trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces, GRC or no”, as per Lord Sumption previously of the Supreme Court, which would be largely similar to the prior state of affairs but not a take I agree with.

    Not particularly clear at all. It’s no longer clear which space trans people can use – transitioned-to sex, natal sex, or neutral only – and it may vary from venue to venue. This also has the impact of functionally excluding trans people from certain places; if a gym doesn’t have a gender-neutral changing room, you are not going to have a changing room to use, period. There is also no simple way to differentiate cisgender people from transgender people beyond appearance and word, given that sex on documentation can be updated via either request (passport, driver’s license, etc) or GRC (birth certificate).

    On a wider note, I can’t imagine that a UK-brand transgender bathroom law plays nice with the ECHR right to privacy. The GRA was brought in because it was held in Goodwin v UK that there was a breach of Article 8 where the actions of the state contradicted someone’s personal identity – that a trans woman had to engage with numerous aspects of public life ‘as a man’. Being required to out oneself every time one requires a piss is probably not in line with this.

18. Just a year ago, Starmer was lording Brianna Gheys death over Sunak.

    Now today, he shows that he believes Ghey was a threat to women, a rape bomb waiting to blow up.

    This is the party we told would leave their transphobia in the election, it was only to pander to conservative voters after all.

    Our “left wing” party.

    Who do trans people have in the UK?

19. “Don’t worry about the desperately broken economy! Let’s just talk about who’s allowed to use toilets and wear dresses! Oh look over there, an immigrant!”

Comments are closed.