Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

So this Harriet Harman is the same as the one who was being touted as suitable for the top post at ECHR nine months ago.
No wonder Starmer is chary of making a statement about the ruling.

That's what we used to be told on here, isn't it? That TW could be excluded but only if it could bee proved that their presence at an event (eg a Lesbian speed-dating evening) would deter women. Quite how that could be proved and to whom was never made clear - there was usually some nonsense about checking what is in their pants to divert from the idiocy of the idea that it is impossible to prove who would have come to something when they are not there.

OldFrill, thanks for that quote.
Harriet Harman is unbelievable.

I can immediately see some who will decide
necessary for themselves and carry on as before.

Harriet Harman … 😮

I can't describe how useless she is. The responses to her tweet are to the point.

Harriet Harman X "The Supreme Court ruling correctly interprets the Equality Act, giving effect to our intention when drafting it. Single sex spaces for women are important & can exclude trans women but only where necessary. The Act, & ruling, protects rights of women while also respecting the rights of trans women."

"But can exclude trans women - but only when necessary"

Think she's re-writing the Act

Harriet Harman who helped bring the Equality Act into being has confirmed that yes she always intended that the category sex meant biological sex. Shame she didn't think to confirm this the first time Stonewall said it wasn't eh? Might have stopped this whole shambles before it gained momentum.

*I - it, they

eazybee

The problem stems as I see it from The Equality Act of 2010, where it states that a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if that person is proposing to go/is undergoing/has undergone a process of gender reassignment

There is a legal presumption in favour of someone who identifies as a female being treated as a female.
This may apply only to Scotland; I am not sure.
I am quoting Wikipedia so I cannot claim it is completely accurate, but it would seem that many organisations took this as a guideline when drawing up policies concerning trans rights to single sex spaces. The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland was halted because managers claimed to have allowed men into single sex spaces due to policies, which were subsequently found not to exist; they simply had a belief it was so.
I sincerely hope this is what the Supreme Court judgement will clarify, and remove all the ambiguous interpretations . forthwith.
Gender Recognition Certificates should not be deemed to have legal force since it is stated men and women cannot change their sex.

The Scottish government interpreted the Equality Act and "woman" to suit it's gender agenda, it was their interpretation that was supported by the Scottish courts but overturned by the UK Supreme Court. On the basis of their interpretation they encouraged NHS Scotland to allow trans women to use female only places. Dr Upton had identified as female and was using the female charging rooms, Sandie Peggie objected to this, was suspended and is still facing a tribunal. Meantime Dr Upton reported her for having refused to help him with a patient, 8 months prior to his accusations. He says it was not a vindictive move. Sandie Peggie has worked for NHS fife for 30 years.
Scotgov initially denied they had directed public institutions to allow trans women into women only spaces, but then I turned and admitted this was their policy.
We await the outcome re Sandie Peggie, there has always been enormous support for her, and every minute now that she is not reinstated, with an apology, with compensation, reflects negatively on NHS Fife and the Scottish Government. They may insist on waiting for the equality commission clarification expected in the summer, but they don't have a moral leg to stand on.

AGAA4

TRAs have shot themselves in the foot with their abysmal behaviour. Sadly non- confrontational transwomen are affected too.

Keep saying it AGAA4.

I and others, have said exactly that for ages.

Clearly, that truth has no impact on those who caused the problems and are planning to continue causing the problems, whilst refusing to acknowledge that their actions impact on trans as well as women

TRAs have shot themselves in the foot with their abysmal behaviour. Sadly non- confrontational transwomen are affected too.

The problem stems as I see it from The Equality Act of 2010, where it states that a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if that person is proposing to go/is undergoing/has undergone a process of gender reassignment

There is a legal presumption in favour of someone who identifies as a female being treated as a female.
This may apply only to Scotland; I am not sure.
I am quoting Wikipedia so I cannot claim it is completely accurate, but it would seem that many organisations took this as a guideline when drawing up policies concerning trans rights to single sex spaces. The Sandie Peggie case in Scotland was halted because managers claimed to have allowed men into single sex spaces due to policies, which were subsequently found not to exist; they simply had a belief it was so.
I sincerely hope this is what the Supreme Court judgement will clarify, and remove all the ambiguous interpretations . forthwith.
Gender Recognition Certificates should not be deemed to have legal force since it is stated men and women cannot change their sex.

Spot on as always Doodledog

Well being accepted by men wouldn't give them power over women, would it?

For the TRAs (as opposed to the 'quiet' TW) that is what underpins the movement.

Exactly Carlotta it's been a bit of a mystery as to why Trans activists haven't used their considerable energies & loud demands calling for mens' kindness and compliance. Too tough a proposition maybe?

The 'Be Kind' mantra has a lot to answer for. It was clever work - most women want to be kind, so it tapped into the way we are socialised and we accepted it.

Well now would be the perfect time for the trans communities to start lobbying men wouldn't it? Demand that they make space for them. Demand that they allow them to use the appropriately sex defined spaces without having to fear aggression, violence or abuse. But most of all; demand that men BE KIND, supportive and compliant. It worked perfectly on women. Until now.

Galaxy

Yes, luckily some of us are difficult, disagreeable women and it didn't quite work

😁😁

Yes, luckily some of us are difficult, disagreeable women and it didn't quite work

There was a report today of a young American high school student who took part in track events, addressing a meeting where she spoke of her distress about having to undress in front of a trans person, who being fully clothed didn't really need to be in the locker room with her, she found the experience traumatising. Imagine being that age and in that position, how would any of us felt? imagine your daughter/granddaughter being intimidated in such a scenario, how would we feel for them? For her efforts of tearfully explaining all of that and explaining "our privacy as females was being violated" she was told by the female school board president, "please wrap it up" I'm amazed that an older woman couldn't empathise with a young teenage girl being put in that position. Maybe she should have asked herself whether she'd like to get undressed in front of some random man she didn't know. It's such attitudes that I find shocking.

Yes,

The 'Be Kind' mantra has a lot to answer for. It was clever work - most women want to be kind, so it tapped into the way we are socialised and we accepted it.

We should not have allowed any men in women's spaces, however lovely they are, it was a mistake, and has taken years of work to row back from.

Well you won’t know that a trans woman is next to you in the women’s toilet anyways . They will continue to do so . Like it or not .

How many times do I have to say it? If there is an undetectable TW in the next cubicle, and they come in, wee and leave there is no problem. The problem is when an aggressive man is able to go in there simply because he says he is female. If the law allows one, it has to allow the other, as we can't have a system where someone decides if it's ok for men to use our spaces based on appearance. Personally (and others will have different points of view) I would ignore the former and report the latter. I don't pay much attention to who is in the next cubicle anyway.

It is also true that allowing men into women's spaces makes it far more difficult to know if anything untoward is happening. A friend of mine was assaulted in the Ladies of a bar we were in as students. The assailant didn't manage to rape her because he had been spotted going into the loos, which were separate from the bar area, and the alarm was raised. Back then men respected women's spaces, but now (or until the ruling, anyway) people have been scared to challenge them for fear of being called transphobic (and all the other insults in the playbook). This man wasn't pretending to be a woman, but it has been perfectly possible for men who are obviously male to just say they are women and access all areas.

There is a huge difference between the two situations, but laws don't operate on a spectrum - things have to be legal or not. As a result, all males in female spaces are there illegally, but in the vast majority of cases it is unlikely that anyone would challenge someone who is just using the loo.

Yes exactly, TerriBull!

AGAA4

Transwomen have been around for a long time and have been using the female toilets mostly with no problems.
TransAction and other groups have caused problems for women and transwomen by insisting that they are women and have a right to be in female safe spaces.
Transwomen who have never caused problems for women are now worried about the reactions after the court case

As I expected the TRAs will continue to behave like aggressive men and cause more trouble. They won't go quietly.

I agree with this, as some have pointed out many times, trans women were using women's public toilets for example and that went under the radar, because most women weren't aware. And why was that? because no doubt those people were very circumspect in doing so, were almost certainly not threatening and didn't want to cause ructions or alarm to the women who would have been alongside them. I don't recall any or much mention or discussion around trans women invading women only spaces. Perhaps if things had continued along those lines it wouldn't have become such a big deal. Somewhere along the line, early noughties or to be specific from Julie Bindel's testament 2004, there was a parting of the ways between the non aggressive type of trans women and the new militants who were hell bent on confrontation that have brought us to where we are today.