Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

We are not at war with trans people, the war is against ignorance and discrimination against any group or so it should be. Women won a hard fought battle today and the lines were shown to be clear. There is no need to cross them as women, we need not push anyone down to be who we are and be heard. Neither in discussion or in opinion.

Another excellent post Carlotta. The 'care, respect and consideration' only ever went one way didnt it, and it wasn't towards females.

It is a blooming wonderful day, and should be celebrated every year along with IWD.

I watched this morning, and cried with relief, and grateful thanks that my 3 grand daughters, and all other young girls and women will not have to put up with the rubbish that we have had to endure during the last 10 years or so.
So much work by so many women, but especially by 'For Women Scotland' group who were given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to settle the matter. Wonderful women.

I will support and hold up my fellow women but I will tread on no other group to do it.

And that, in a nutshell, is what has lead us to today's court hearing. Unfortunately, the TRAs didn't get your memo and instead of securing their own rights and safe spaces they aggressively trod on the existing rights and safe spaces that biological women spent many years carving out for themselves. A good example of this was when a group of women from Afghanistan and Iran tried to hold a 3 day feminists meeting in Glasgow to discuss such topics as FGM; a subject that would have no bearing or consequence to anyone other than a biological woman. TRAs led abusive chants as attendees, many of whom were older women, queued to enter. Shouting "keep terfs out of Glasgow" and "transphobia kills and hurts all women", despite knowing that most of the attendees were refugees and of the Muslim faith, they did their level best to get the meeting cancelled altogether. They had no respect for either traumatised women, vulnerable women, women for whom their faith or culture made being with men impossible or the simple fact that some subjects, such as FGM, just wouldn't apply to them. So yeah; you're 100% right Luminance, let's not tread on no other group to do it maybe send them the memo again

Yay indeed FriedGreenTomatoes
And Yay to all the women posting here, in relief that 5 high court judges know what a woman is.
Luminance - get over yourself. Apologies for a personal comment but I’m so tired and fed up with nonsense

Transgender women are not legally women, Britain’s highest court has declared in a landmark ruling hailed as a victory by JK Rowling.

Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender.

Wednesday’s judgment was hailed as a victory for common sense by gender-critical campaigners and politicians, with JK Rowling saying it would protect “the rights of women and girls across the UK”.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.

It followed a years-long legal battle between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman.

Lord Hodge told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

In its 88-page ruling, the court added that the “concept of sex is binary” under the Equality Act 2010.”

Yay!

mae13

J K Rowling is vindicated! Wonder what a certain Daniel Radcliffe makes of that?

🤣🤣

I find the the term offensive as referred to trans people. I do not think that can be put into any simpler terms. It is an offensive term that I shan't repeat again. I am pro women but not anti trans so that should be rather apparent.

“I pointed out where the issue was people quoting back different parts”

I honestly have no idea what you mean.

Is it that you find the word Jock inoffensive or that you find it offensive to give an example of aggressive trans behaviour.

The language or the content?

John Sweeney accept the court's judgement. He's probably hoping it may detract from the £20,000 he's awarded his ministers, although UNITE may still strike. Calls for his resignation are growing.
Deafening silence from Sturgeon, for relentlessly pursuing her twisted agenda and who owes so very many women an apology for calling them bigots.

Not at all. I simply did not want to repeat the whole phrase as I view it as offensive. I pointed out where the issue was people were quoting back different parts. Now you know which part I find offensive and are going to pains to defend it. I do not believe it defendable. We differ there only on our outlook towards women's rights.

So what is the issue of that comment? Elucidate because it neither used offensive words nor perpetrated an untruth.

So what is the issue you’re so vehement about?

IMO the only comments that speak for themselves are yours Luminance. As Lathyrus has pointed out, putting * instead of the actual word is implying that the post was offensive when it wasn't.

I see you prefer to avoid the issue of that comment. I would always want to know whether those debating this issue were protecting women or whether it were something else to know whether issues of equality were worthy of time in discussion. It seems today was not enough and that sort of comment unchallenged speaks for itself.

Jock isn't an offensive term Luminance.

The word was jock not *.which infers it was offensive

Jock - an enthusiast in a sport or activity - Oxford dictionary

Does enthusiastically confronting women in toilets count as a sport orvan an activity?

I can't think of anyone on GN who hasn't or would never oppose evil in the name of women Luminance; who is this aimed at?

I find these vague insinuations rather tiresome.

Luminance
Your implication that others would tread on other groups to
support and hold up . . . women
may afford you some satisfaction but makes little sense.

Equally your evil in the name of women makes little sense when the harm to females by certain TW is all too evident, but you so far, haven’t provided evidence of things you claim.

Perhaps we need to clarify with judges whether refering to trans women as a "** in a frock" as it was put would be classed as discrimination or harassment? But anyone who does not stand against that comment cannot claim to be inclusive of trans people in any way.

Word salad

Mollygo

Clearly the ill will in the post you mention demonstrated ill will from TW to females, not the other way round.
But I do understand that if you are an ardent anti female rights, trans supporter, you wouldn’t see them like that.

That is a choice. I have no problem with the clarification today in fact I rather think it was needed. Why I am opposed to is evil in the name of women. Not in my name. I will support and hold up my fellow women but I will tread on no other group to do it.

Luminance

Indeed welcome to gransnet where comments like the one on page 2 at 9:44am are ignored by those who claim no ill will towards trans people. It is all rather dire.

Yes that post was a protest about aggressive actions by trans people and their ill will towards women.

How strange to read it otherwise.

Clearly the ill will in the post you mention demonstrated ill will from TW to females, not the other way round.
But I do understand that if you are an ardent anti female rights, trans supporter, you wouldn’t see them like that.

Indeed welcome to gransnet where comments like the one on page 2 at 9:44am are ignored by those who claim no ill will towards trans people. It is all rather dire.

J K Rowling is vindicated! Wonder what a certain Daniel Radcliffe makes of that?