Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

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

It is not comparable because the judgement was long awaited, therefore plenty of time to prepare immediate responses whatever the verdict. The women bringing the cases had four different responses ready, and plans for action whatever the outcome. Starmer is deferring it.

Everything stems from the definition of sex, Someone on this thread or elsewhere has mentioned the cruelty in allowing people to believe they could change sex, and I believe much of the transgender movement has developed from the exploitation of vulnerable people.
A good place to start would be the abolition of any privileges coming from possession of transgender recognition certificates. Also the imposition of inaccurate pronouns.

Bridget Phillipson has said transgender people must use toilets designated for their biological sex. However, I do think that wherever possible facilities should be made available specifically for the transgender community to use. There are toilets intended solely for use by neuro diverse people so it can be done. I fully agree with the ruling last week but we need to accommodate and respect the feeling of others too.

Now that there has been a ruling, and the government has endorsed it (not that I would expect KS not to endorse a Supreme Court ruling, as a barrister by profession) the problems can't be kicked down the road any longer. We know that transpeople should use facilities designated by their sex, and we know that 'sex' means biological sex as observed at birth', whatever we have been told to believe before now.

How that will work pragmatically remains to be seen. I am not sure that compelling premises owners to rejig their plumbing and space to create 'third spaces' is either reasonable or realistic, and am not sure what that would achieve anyway. If someone feels threatened by having to declare their true sex by using the relevant facilities (which I understand) aren't they going to feel the same about using the designated 'trans' ones?

Are people suggesting that transmen and transwomen have facilities separate from one another? Two extra sets of toilets (so four in total) in a small cafe? A separate changing room in a small boutique-style shop, so three altogether? Separate wards, wings and so on in a variety of settings? that is likely to be ruinously expensive for businesses and public services, so I can't see it becoming mandatory (and nor, IMO, should it be).

The answer should be to move towards acceptance of transpeople as transpeople, so they can use sex-based facilities without awkwardness. Why would that be problematic? I appreciate that after living through such divisive times it can't happen overnight, but it's surprising how quickly tides of opinion can turn where there is a will, and I genuinely believe that most people are already tolerant of transpeople - just not prepared to have them drive every agenda.

Some of the little coffee shops I go to have just one public toilet for everyone to use. So no problems for trans people.
What will happen with the bigger toilet blocks in the city where there are separate toilets for men and women I wouldn't like to speculate.

I doubt transwomen men will use the men's toilets. I have seen a woman being forcefully ejected from the men's toilets with some angry shouting from.the men inside.

I would like to see Starmer apologise to Rosie Duffield. She was right. He was wrong.

AGAA4

Some of the little coffee shops I go to have just one public toilet for everyone to use. So no problems for trans people.
What will happen with the bigger toilet blocks in the city where there are separate toilets for men and women I wouldn't like to speculate.

I doubt transwomen men will use the men's toilets. I have seen a woman being forcefully ejected from the men's toilets with some angry shouting from.the men inside.

A little coffee shop with one loo is intrinsically safe, as the sink is usually in with the toilet, so there is nowhere for anyone to lurk, and the door usually opens directly into the populated area. I am not suggesting that transwomen are intrinsically likely to lurk, but that any man person can do so where there is opportunity, and allowing any men in opens the door to that opportunity for all of them.

It's the 'blocks' I am talking about, and small places where there is one Ladies and one Gents loo - it will often not be possible to install a third 'unisex' one, never mind a fourth one so that both MTF and FTM transpeople are accommodated.

Carlotta

I would like to see Starmer apologise to Rosie Duffield. She was right. He was wrong.

Yes, I would like to see that too. A statement recognising that so many brave women have been wronged by all of this, endorsed by all parties who wish to draw a line under it would not go amiss. If a party chooses not to get involved that's up to them, but it would put their cards on the table.

Coffee shops, restaurants etc. in the UK or the many I’ve used abroad, with one loo are, as has been said, not really a problem.

There is no room in them for demonstrating that you’re a TW in a women’s toilet.
If you’re sporting a beard whilst wearing a miniskirt to show off your hairy legs, you’d just be a weirdo.
No audience for your performance and, in view of the number of men who forget to fasten their fly, not even a chance to get a wow for letting it all hang out.

It’s the blocks. AND the use some TW have made of that opportunity which are the problem.
Same applies to the changing rooms. THOSE trans have spoilt it for females and all other trans but have no shame about doing that.
Even putting m trans toilet facilities won’t mean that THOSE trans would use them since they are convinced their lie is the truth, and will happily break the rule, sadly with the support of some females.

I wonder if putting CCTV in toilet blocks would help. Not in the cubicles but in the wash basin area. I know some people would object but I wouldn't mind a camera seeing me wash my hands.
There is a toilet block I don't go to as you have to walk down a corridor with lights clicking on as you go. The women's toilets are at the far end. The men's nearer the entrance. It is always empty. These sort of places are good for anyone with evil intent.

Personally I think there is enough conflict and distress and anger of many kinds moving forward, and practical and emotional dilemmas to solve, to really want to go back retrospectively and try and shame or demand apologies generally speaking unless in exceptional circumstances.

The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.

Haven't we got enough to be going on with to try and make the new guidelines work and deal effectively with the men who would continue to cause trouble and distress not just for women but for many transwomen as well.

And the complexities ahead - what provision is needed where and how. And the real dilemmas that will continue to trouble beds in busy short of beds hospitals, and how best to navigate the distress when ill already, and so on.

The law was not different, those who interpreted it got it wrong.
Oh and we will absolutely be talking about who failed women and who showed courage. Courage is I think one of the most important qualities in a politician.

The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.

What?? The law was NOT different. A woman has ALWAYS been an female adult human being. A trans woman has ALWAYS been a male adult human being. And frankly, no, I don't think we should just "move on" from the outrageous number of women who lost their careers, their livelihoods and had their whole world turned upside down just for stating the bleedin' obvious. So yes, I think those women deserve an apology, particularly when one of those men is the leader of the country. Nothing says strength like the ability to acknowledge you've been wrong and apologise for it.

BBC news:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

Terrifying that he's needed supreme court judges to tell him that.

Wyllow3 personally I think the blatant criticism and hounding of Rosie Duffield does merit an apology from Starmer. When he started his election campaign in Kent he very publicly shunned Kent's only sitting Labour MP, and didn't invite her to the launch. Why would you do such a thing other than to silently announce that she was persona non grata? Imagine how that felt when the only reason was that she had publicly stated that sex is binary, immutable and that woman means adult human female. Exactly what the Supreme Court has just confirmed and clarified the law has always meant.

Carlotta

BBC news:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

Terrifying that he's needed supreme court judges to tell him that.

5 minutes ago he thought 1% of women had a penis? Has he had a Damascene conversion

Oops sorry correction, Starmer thought 0.1% of women were in possession of a penis.

Carlotta

^The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.^

What?? The law was NOT different. A woman has ALWAYS been an female adult human being. A trans woman has ALWAYS been a male adult human being. And frankly, no, I don't think we should just "move on" from the outrageous number of women who lost their careers, their livelihoods and had their whole world turned upside down just for stating the bleedin' obvious. So yes, I think those women deserve an apology, particularly when one of those men is the leader of the country. Nothing says strength like the ability to acknowledge you've been wrong and apologise for it.

What I was referring to was that the GRA meant that a transwoman could ID as woman in terms of gender, and change their name and birth certificate and use female pronouns.

I certainly think we should remember and celebrate courageous women and some transwomen who spoke up against those aggressive men and all that they did.

I would also like to celebrate the transwomen who have had to suffer threats and violence too just because they were trans.

I just don't believe in mass accusatory campaigns as being positive going forward. (As opposed to celebrating, naming, remembering.)

Not so much a damascene conversion Rosie51, probably more of a "oh shit, I could lose votes if I don't say this". I'm still waiting for the rowing back on "99.9%" of women "of course they haven't got a penis".

Rosie51

Wyllow3 personally I think the blatant criticism and hounding of Rosie Duffield does merit an apology from Starmer. When he started his election campaign in Kent he very publicly shunned Kent's only sitting Labour MP, and didn't invite her to the launch. Why would you do such a thing other than to silently announce that she was persona non grata? Imagine how that felt when the only reason was that she had publicly stated that sex is binary, immutable and that woman means adult human female. Exactly what the Supreme Court has just confirmed and clarified the law has always meant.

Thats a difficult one Rosie.

Yes I think he was wrong and should have invited her to the launch, on the basis of agree to disagree policy wise because there are feminists with that POV in the Labour Party (they had a big banner in front of the Supreme Court celebrating with other women).
Many different views in the L Party as I know from endless meetings including of course those who backed the GRC legal gender-wise transwomen rights.

Carlotta

Not so much a damascene conversion Rosie51, probably more of a "oh shit, I could lose votes if I don't say this". I'm still waiting for the rowing back on ^"99.9%" of women "of course they haven't got a penis".^

I accept that politicians change their minds and policy because of consequences and events Carlotta.

I think one could "have a go" at politicians of many shades going back in time on this issue because its been a process of change and learning. As I have already said for example, Teresa May at the time she said it was in favour of self ID.

I've been through a long learning process myself by listening to different POV but don't believe that the red top and social media tendency to reduce the debate to what someone has said about penis's is helpful or productive.

There should most definitely be recognition of the miscarriages of justice that occurred as a result of trans activism; Rosie Duffield being one example, Kathleen Stock another, Sandie Peggie a third, and there are many, many more. It was not as though people did not object at the time; they did and were over-ruled, threatened with loss of jobs and put under intolerable pressure, and this was from their managers who had a duty of care. As has been said, extremely brave women, and the injustices they suffered should not be swept out of sight. Not: let's move on, (and forget all about it).
People responded wrongly, not differently, to circumstances at the time, and they are the ones who are going to have to make concessions. No shaving off women's cubicles to provide extra unisex lavatories for trans people. No-one ever discussed males invading female only spaces or the distress it might cause; now all anyone seems concerned about is how dreadful it will be for these people to use spaces designated for their own sex.

Oh it is absolutely not specific to Labour. Penny Mordaunt was useless, the lib dems were awful, I could go on.

Yes eazybee

People responded wrongly, not differently, to circumstances at the time,

but there are so many, even on GN who still aver that TW are women.

This is not, and never has been a party political issue. It's not and never has been about left or right, or Labour or Tory. I found all the accusations on here of being right wing incredibly tedious and ill-informed.

My feeling has always been that of course intelligent people such as KS (and Johnson, Sunak ^et al^) knew that women had cervixes and no penises, and men had penises and no cervixes. Maybe there are some biological anomalies, and maybe what they meant was to say that men who had undergone surgical transition should be called women?

Either way, I think that the way the media were prowling at the time of the election it would have been political suicide to go against the prevailing view that TWAW and that transpeople are the 'most vulnerable group in society'. Nobody on either political side spoke the truth, and that was shameful, but it was understandable if not excusable, particularly for Labour, who always has a baying press mob ready to criticise anything they say or do, with readers more than ready to quote soundbites and slogans. They would have been vilified as betraying the vulnerable, not caring about the alleged suicide attempts of transpeople and so on. I am not excusing their weasel words, but I understood why they did what they did.

All the same, I do think that women like Rosie Duffield deserve an apology. Not to be vindictive towards those who wronged her, but to show the rest of us that things have changed and that it is not business as usual - and just because an apology is deserved.

It takes a strong person to say "I was wrong" but I doubt there will be many apologies to the women who have been badly wronged.