Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Luminance

I was refering to earlier comments I now need to scroll back to read. Also my username was just sitting there on my face cream. I didn't choose it based on any other factor. I became rather frustrated at finding one that wasn't taken and that one simply worked.

🌞

For anyone who’s interested. It’s a long read, but important.
Yesterday’s update from Maya Forstater:

“What an amazing day yesterday was: 16th April 2025, the day women in the UK got their rights back.

I was sitting in the front row of the Supreme Court with Helen Joyce, Fiona McAnena, Anya Palmer, Naomi Cunningham and Michael Foran. I could see Marion Calder and Susan Smith from For Women Scotland, as well as Kate Harris, Kate Barker, Joanna Cherry and several others from the three organisations that together intervened on behalf of lesbians. The court was packed and hushed, and we knew that many more were watching at a watch party organised by For Women Scotland in Edinburgh, and around the country and indeed the world.

None of the parties or interveners knew in advance what the judgment would be. Sometimes barristers get advance copies of a judgment, or a press summary, but not this time. We had thought through our strategy for a wide range of outcomes, using a 1-to-10 framework to think about how bad or good the judgment might be. We had precooked two statements: one for a win and one for a loss. We didn’t dare hope the result would be better than 8 on our scale – roughly, an FWS win, but with comments designed to deflect criticism from those opposed to sex-based rights.

When Lord Hodge announced that the meaning of sex is biological, there was a well-behaved collective exhale in the Supreme Court (before he started speaking, we had been warned not to make any noise) – and, as we discovered when we watched the footage later – a rousing cheer in Edinburgh. Then it was time for tears of joy – and an avalanche of tweets.

This judgment was the culmination of so much hard work by For Women Scotland and their legal team; by Sex Matters and our legal team; and by the lesbian interveners and their legal team. That, in turn, built upon the hard work done by everyone who has fought to articulate and express why women’s rights depend on having a clear, reality-based definition of sex in law.

This victory wouldn’t have happened without the thousands of supporters who contributed not just by donating for legal fees but by building and supporting organisations that can hold their own in a hostile environment, and most of all by speaking up themselves whenever they safely can.

Within Sex Matters we have been wrangling and testing the ideas that went into our submission since 2023, trying to find a way to remove the spanner of the Gender Recognition Act from the workings of the Equality Act in order that it could function properly again. Our submission by Ben Cooper KC and David Welsh argued that “sex” and related expressions in the Equality Act should be given a consistent meaning that makes sense in the context of the whole, taking account of the act’s purpose and all relevant provisions.

Lord Hodge called our submission “cogent” – which coming from the highest court in the land is high praise indeed. At paragraph 35 of the judgment, it says that the judges were “particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions”.

That “focus and structure” is clear throughout the judgment, which proceeds methodically and comprehensively through the Equality Act and tests whether it makes sense to interpret “man” and “woman” as mixed categories including biological males and females, or instead to interpret the two words in their ordinary meaning as the two sexes. The Scottish Government had argued that the words had variable meaning throughout the Act, but the Supreme Court dismissed that possibility. That “focus and structure” is clear throughout the judgment, which proceeds methodically and comprehensively through the Equality Act and tests whether it makes sense to interpret “man” and “woman” as mixed categories including biological males and females, or instead to interpret the two words in their ordinary meaning as the two sexes. The Scottish Government had argued that the words had variable meaning throughout the Act, but the Supreme Court dismissed that possibility.

The Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in my case by Sir Akhlaq Choudhury, who found that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” in my case. He ruled that “the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not”, saying only that a GRC must not be disregarded in circumstances where it was legally relevant. The Supreme Court endorsed the Forstater judgment and called it comprehensive and impressive.

The Supreme Court is only five minutes’ walk from my old workplace at the Centre for Global Development, where I lost my job for wanting to talk about protections for women in the law. It has taken us five years to get from a situation where a woman could lose her job for saying that the definition of sex in law should be reality-based to hearing the Supreme Court agree with that position.

Courage calls to courage. And freedom of speech makes us all cleverer, as well as harder to frighten and control. That first protection for free speech about sex-based rights started a process whereby each person who spoke up made it easier for the next person to do so, and each thing we said further refined our message and thinking. Step by step, we became braver and harder to ignore. And now scrappy upstart organisations and grassroots groups of dissident women and men have brought most media outlets and many politicians – as well as the judges of the Supreme Court – to the point where they see the issue our way.

Every person who has spoken up for reality and faced ridiculous accusations of being a bigot, fascist or Nazi was vindicated by the Supreme Court ruling. Those were the angry cries of teenagers, it turned out, encouraged and amplified by adults who should have known better – and some who were willing to exploit their distress.
But organisational inertia is powerful. Our next task is to make sure that this judgment is understood and implemented by the national and devolved governments and all their departments; by local authorities, police forces and NHS trusts; by regulators, trades unions, charities, sports governing bodies, universities and schools; and by industry bodies and every employer.

After Easter we will be writing letters to key individuals and organisations, and helping you to take action. Already we have seen that the judgment is having an impact: today British Transport Police started to walk back its policy on searching, which we have argued is unlawful and sought to challenge in court.

The Supreme Court warned us not to be “triumphalist”. And we are not. The judgment came after years in which time was wasted and careers were derailed in the fight to retain rights that women had back in 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force. We will always mourn the institutions that have been degraded, and the young lives that have been blighted by this pernicious ideology. Yesterday was a good day, but we won’t forget the harm that was done.”

The Supreme Court has ruled yet still we go round in ever-decreasing circles 🤔

PoliticsNerd

ViceVersa

I do treat people with respect, and I assure you that I am far from ignorant on the law. I am certainly not making untruthful generalisations or trying to score points. I could cite numerous examples to back up what I have said - that information is widely available to anyone who cares to do their research.

So why are you querying the law as different in each case with "then that's somehow ok?" without pointing out, as you now tell us you know, that the law is exactly the same in both cases?

Is the way you suggested the person you attack might look treating all people with respect?

There have been some very good and thoughtful posts trying to deal with this very difficult issue but there have also been many that are not.

It is not a deflection and I am not attacking anyone, I can assure you. I know a few trans people and I have friends with trans children and I treat them all with the same respect I would show to anyone else.
However, it is a fact that there have been cases where very vocal and dare I say, militant transwomen have demanded access to single sex women's changing rooms, to the very real distress of women using those facilities. The case involving Nurse Sandie Peggie is just one example of that. ~
So I repeat, please explain to me what is the difference between someone exposing his very obviously male genitalia on a public street, and someone doing the same in a single sex, women's changing room, only that person claims they have the right to do so because they are trans?

ViceVersa
So I repeat, please explain to me what is the difference between someone exposing his very obviously male genitalia on a public street, and someone doing the same in a single sex, women's changing room, only that person claims they have the right to do so because they are trans?

Interesting question, but I fear it will remain unanswered.

Mollygo, thanks for the detailed update.

The supreme court’s ruling isn’t complicated or difficult to understand. The radio/tv coverage seems determined to present it alongside trans activists who try to distort and present it as both wrong and badly presented

The courts have answered. It is time to forge a new chapter with dignity and respect.

Businesses hijacked by Stonewall’s league tables will be chasing their tales on this issue for months to come. And activists won’t give up. It’s what they thrive on.

*tails

Iam64

Mollygo, thanks for the detailed update.

The supreme court’s ruling isn’t complicated or difficult to understand. The radio/tv coverage seems determined to present it alongside trans activists who try to distort and present it as both wrong and badly presented

None so blind Iam.
Well said. 👏

Luminance

The courts have answered. It is time to forge a new chapter with dignity and respect.

I agree, so perhaps some people will stop insisting now that a human person can change sex.
Or that a man who insists he is a woman persists in encroaching on single sex spaces designated for women.
And that those Health Authorities will apologise in full to the nurses so shamefully treated.

Thanks MollyGo; Maya Forstater is an awesome woman, has never lost courage despite facing bullying, harassment and intimidation on a grand scale. She's sacrificed a great deal to get us where we are today.

And - a man who rapes using his penis can no longer claim to be a woman and have his crime recorded as a rape committed by a woman
Apologies for grammar - the relief gone to my head

I would have thought that the scientific research will continue to help the medical community and trans people themselves understand what is happening to them and why. Next steps might include ensuring facilities meet requirements for comfort and dignity when changing or using a bathroom. I would hope that a mutual respect and understanding might be formed and that this doesn't further impact people's mental health or how they engage with each other in public.

Another victory for basic common sense Iam64.

How did it get this far?

Luminance

I would have thought that the scientific research will continue to help the medical community and trans people themselves understand what is happening to them and why. Next steps might include ensuring facilities meet requirements for comfort and dignity when changing or using a bathroom. I would hope that a mutual respect and understanding might be formed and that this doesn't further impact people's mental health or how they engage with each other in public.

Quite so. Mutual respect would go a long way, as the lack of respect for women in general and those of us who have dared to speak against the TWAW mantra in particular has led to the need for this ruling.

The lack of respect for the nurse who was called such a vile name by the prisoner is a case in point.

What happened to the law regarding racial hate crime in her case?

Looking at today’s headlines doesn’t indicate respect from transactivists towards the ruling of the Supreme Court. On the contrary, there’s much shouting and suggestions of being victimised and marginalised. Absolutely no respect for the brave women whose challenge to nonsense resulted in this Ruling

Following on from Rosie51's post regarding Ocado withdrawing from Mumsnet because of their "hateful political views;" they're now hastily rowing back These comments are not representative of us as a company, and we believe they were made by a temporary contractor who is no longer with the business. We apologise unreservedly to Mumsnet.

I'd accept that if it hadn't taken them 12 months and a Supreme Court hearing to distance themselves from it. Rank stupidity to piss off your main demographic customer base.

Mutual respect . . .
Has to be a two way thing and possibly needs some exemplars.
Maybe I’ll suggest a couple.
Everyone, male or female should stay out of places, events etc where they’re not entitled to be.
That will be a start.

No one, male or female should threaten death to anyone or demand that someone lose their jobs for speaking the truth.

People’s beliefs should be equally respected.
You can no longer say you’re a woman unless you’re a woman.
However, you should be able to say you’re trans without fear because that’s what you believe.

Others should be able to say you can’t change sex, without fear because that’s what they believe.

Any other examples?

Have you any examples of mutual respect that will apply both ways Luminance?

Well yes Mumsnet must be the majority of Ocados customer base. Fools that they are.

Mutual respect has its own clear definition. Women have their protections, trans people have their protections. Simple acknowledgement of each other, our struggles and our journeys. People aren't evil for expressing their own protected beliefs. The evil only comes from those trying to silence them.

Yes there has been lots of silencing it was a key part of the movement.

Carlotta

Following on from Rosie51's post regarding Ocado withdrawing from Mumsnet because of their "hateful political views;" they're now hastily rowing back These comments are not representative of us as a company, and we believe they were made by a temporary contractor who is no longer with the business. We apologise unreservedly to Mumsnet.

I'd accept that if it hadn't taken them 12 months and a Supreme Court hearing to distance themselves from it. Rank stupidity to piss off your main demographic customer base.

I didn't know about Ocado.

Not that I use them (they were unable to accommodate me during lockdowns).

Galaxy

Yes there has been lots of silencing it was a key part of the movement.

So that will be a good place to start showing respect.