Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Oops. The fact that men have facilities on every floor is irritating, but when they can also use the Ladies as they have become unisex the problem is exacerbated. Make students and staff, trans or not, use them when passing, which is often, as they are near the entrance to the building.

Maybe read the list before reacting?

Mollygo

You’re right to question the source of that info and I’m sorry I did not do so.

The following does have a verifiable source.

The fact that half of male prisoners who identify as transgender have been sentenced for sexual crime is strong evidence that transwomen exhibit a high propensity to commit sexual crime similar to that observed for men. They do not exhibit a low propensity to commit sexual crime like that observed for women.

^It appears that identifying as a woman does not reduce the risk that male people can pose to others. If identifying as a women did reduce the propensity to commit sex crime to female levels we would have expected to see just 3 or 4 of transwomen in prison with sex crime convictions. Instead we see up to 76.^

Give us that exact source , please .

Can someone on here define what a lady dick is, please?

Oh, of course, all the crowds of transgender females crowding out the so called real deal
How rude, but not unexpected from someone who thinks it’s OK to pick and choose which rules to follow, and who supports TW over females.

Nannee49

Can someone on here define what a lady dick is, please?

The penis of a male who pretends to be a woman, but still has his equipment and wishes to use it on female.
Or possible what KS wrongly thought 1% of women have.

Be kind Mollygo, try not to take offence, we women must accept & accommodate the nebulous concept of being only the so called real deal along with the equally fantastic notion of lady dicks!

Oh! except now we absolutely don't.

And thanks for your definitive Mollygo, much appreciated.

It’s so telling that ‘real deal’, referring to actual women, is used as a very dismissive insult.

Of course we should not be ’crowded out’ of female spaces by having them removed when male spaces remain in place. That is not about ‘hate’, it’s about fairness. Can you really not see that, Syracute?

“Oh, of course, all the crowds of transgender females crowding out the so called real deal .” Syracute

How awful for you to have to come across so many real deals on daily basis, one wonders how you cope…

From an article in the Telegraph dates 31.12.24

* almost two thirds of transgender prisoners who identify as female are convicted sex offenders. Of 245 trans women inmates, who are legally recognised as male, 151 or 62% had committed at least one sexual offence.*

Transgender women exhibit male-type pattern of criminality. A freedom of information request by Fair Play for Women showed that in 2019, 81 of 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales had at least one conviction for a sexual offence.

There are policy implications for our over burdened criminal justice system. At least the Supreme Court Ruling should / will prevent crimes by rapists and peadophiles who identify as female being listed as having been committed by a woman

Straight question to Syracute and all the apologists for dick swinging aggressive men however they present themselves - have you ever been in a confined space with a man intent on harm?

I don't think it is helpful to use this issue to make cheap political digs. The situation we are now in didn't happen overnight, or since July - it has built up over time, whichever party was in power, and in the past 14 years nothing was done to stop the momentum. If there had been, there wouldn't be so much to wind back.

I don't know what to expect from the new government, and I have to say that their record on this issue has been no better than that of the Tories; but I think that if KS or anyone else had rushed to comment over a BH weekend it would have been foolish. This issue is not about soundbites - we need considered policy as there are far-reaching implications, and he will know all too well that there are people itching to accuse him of making promises he doesn't fulfil, so it is important that he sticks to what he knows will 'have legs' before announcing anything.

I just want this ridiculous situation to end now.
There are around 35 million women in the UK. There are 116,000 transwomen and of this minority even fewer TRAs and yet some politicians and organisations have accommodated and placated these few people at the expense of vast numbers of women.
Some even believed that a man could change sex. The law has now stated that cannot happen so hopefully things will change for the better for women.

They rolled poor Bridget Phillipson out to do the deed this morning. I have mentioned it on the other thread, the government welcome the ruling, single sex spaces mean by biological sex.

Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister and is expected to comment on breaking news. As the leader of a country he needs to be decisive and prepared.
This judgement has been long awaited and he and his team should have had a range of appropriate comments prepared, as well as considered policies with far-reaching implications, depending on the verdict. The increasing silence suggests he and his team are searching for ways to circumvent this ruling as are some of his MPs, no doubt considering the impact of Stonewall's ire if they fail to meet their demands.
He was quick enough to speak, and act (badly, as it turned out) with the Southport riots.

Doodledog

I don't think it is helpful to use this issue to make cheap political digs. The situation we are now in didn't happen overnight, or since July - it has built up over time, whichever party was in power, and in the past 14 years nothing was done to stop the momentum. If there had been, there wouldn't be so much to wind back.

I don't know what to expect from the new government, and I have to say that their record on this issue has been no better than that of the Tories; but I think that if KS or anyone else had rushed to comment over a BH weekend it would have been foolish. This issue is not about soundbites - we need considered policy as there are far-reaching implications, and he will know all too well that there are people itching to accuse him of making promises he doesn't fulfil, so it is important that he sticks to what he knows will 'have legs' before announcing anything.

I totally agree with you on this Doodledog. The implications of the Supreme Court ruling is so momentous in its consequences that they needed discussing fully and properly. and also to discuss what they knew would be coming - yes, some predictable journalist asked the "penis" question straightaway.

I don't think we can finally comment until the Equalities Commission guidelines have come out and people in difficult positions have clear guidelines.

There is to be a commons statement on it today btw.

It's not at all comparable with the Southport Riots. They were actually happening and immediate responses were needed. I welcome a mature response which has quite properly co-incided with the return of the H of C after the bank holiday weekend.

As regards who made the announcement, Sky news reports

"Starmer said: “I welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, which has given us clarity, much-needed clarity, and I think for those that are now drawing up guidance, it’s a much clearer position.
"I’m really pleased that the court has now clarified the position.

“We can move on from there and I think that’s been very helpful, and I would welcome that", he told the BBC.
Drawn on whether this means he does not believe a trans woman is in fact a woman, Starmer said: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear."
Starmer also suggested guidance needs to be shared to public bodies to ensure all organisations following the ruling.

so I'm not sure about the point made above on who should be breaking the news.

It is heartbreaking that three ordinary women ( or far from ordinary as it turns out) had to go to the supreme Court to get the governmemt to clarify the existing law.
We have to move on but we will never forget the behaviour of politicians, organisations, etc.

I said yesterday that I was
Not convinced this or any other government will endorse the Supreme Court Ruling. so I am relieved to hear that they have done so.
It isn’t the same as the Southport riots, in that the riots and their cause were unexpected, and needed a quickly formulated response.
Hopefully they were aware that this decision was due, and the possible outcomes.
IMO it would have been better if Keir Starmer had acknowledged the result, whichever way it went, even announcing that there is a lot to consider about how to implement it.
Now we just need to wait and see.

It's not at all comparable with the Southport Riots. They were actually happening and immediate responses were needed

In so much as mass violence, threats, damages to property, chants to kill or harm people; I'd say that the TRAs activities last week bore a striking resemblance to the riots last summer. And as Starmer rapidly introduced his National Violent Disorder programme to tackle such events, emptied prison cells to make room for the rioters, and ensured that those offenders were dealt swift justice; I'm wondering why he's so silent on this one and not employing the law he's already got in place. He's not known as 2 Tier Keir for nothing apparently.

Carlotta - I put this on the other thread but your concerns deserve a reply - they are being addressed by the government and the police right now - bit more from Sky news coming up.

"""Rare consensus on 'completely unacceptable' scenes at trans rights protest that damaged statues

Labour and the Conservatives have both condemned protestors that damaged statues and waved offensive placards on the weekend as "completely unacceptable".

"Stephen Morgan condemned the protestors this morning on Sky News.

The education minister said he hoped there would be “police action” over “unacceptable” language used at the trans rights protest in London.
Morgan said: “It’s completely unacceptable language to be used, and obviously any matters that break the law should be reported to the police, and hopefully police action is taken.”

"The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it is investigating and has officers trawling back through CCTV footage.

No arrests were made at the time, with the protest largely peaceful.

I'd be stunned if even one arrest is made Willow; let alone be convicted and given a prison sentence.

Carlotta

I'd be stunned if even one arrest is made Willow; let alone be convicted and given a prison sentence.

The will is clearly there, it depends on evidence, doesn't it?

Whether there was CCTV, whether the police were close to the statues re body cams, whether pictures of the offensive placards show people's faces or not.

I really cannot believe not a single police presence saw the transwomen I've seen photos of, who were standing in their frocks and high heels clearly peeing (with their penises) up against public buildings. Such male species behaviour, scent marking, just like dogs and tom cats! I back the police, having police family, but can't agree with what are obviously 'orders from on high' to disregard blatant public order offences.