Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

I’m have to stop doing three things at once but I think the point is clear.

It does rather depend on perspective which changes due to circumstances. There are women who have been impacted mentally by illness that have damaged their bodies. In some cases that can be given back cosmetically and sometimes it can not, like the ability to carry children or a removed body part or their sight. I suppose when you view something like gender dysphoria in the same light and see it cause the same problems, it is different. I don't bring it up to weaponise it but rather consider it as a symptom. Symptoms with a cause.

And the other good thing Lathyrus is that all the crimes committed for rape, murder, paedophilia, sexual abuse,etc, won't be grouped into the statistics for women's crimes. There's already been 1 murder/attempted murder, 4 Sexual offences with child victims, 3 Sexual offences with adult victims and 2 other violent offences, 1 for Terrorism and 1 for Multiple domestic violence; all by criminals claiming to be transgender, so far in 2025. Not fair to lump them in with female criminality.

Doodledog

Also, crimes by TRAs against women aren't counted as hate crimes, as women don't have those 'protections'. Does that mean that we are now the 'most vulnerable group in society?

Yes. Noticeably, even in the section on sexual orientation hate crimes, there is no direct recording of TRA/TW attacks on females. Are they claiming that those attacks, were not hate crimes?

Carlotta

And the other good thing Lathyrus is that all the crimes committed for rape, murder, paedophilia, sexual abuse,etc, won't be grouped into the statistics for women's crimes. There's already been 1 murder/attempted murder, 4 Sexual offences with child victims, 3 Sexual offences with adult victims and 2 other violent offences, 1 for Terrorism and 1 for Multiple domestic violence; all by criminals claiming to be transgender, so far in 2025. Not fair to lump them in with female criminality.

Yes. I’m afraid any crime statistic of this century that is sex based, whether crimes by or against, will have to be questioned. And medical data has been compromised so as to be virtually useless in some cases.

None of it is valid I’m afraid.

Thats an eye opener as regards recording of crimes and medical stuff. The medical data needs to include both birth sex and trans status.

Yes definitely Wyllow, because unless it does record in separate categories it will be impossible to tell the effect of hormone therapies, if say, they caused an increase in breast cancer in males, because it f they have been recorded as female up to now the increase would be masked in those statistics. Or an ncrease in heart disease, say, in trans men.

We can’t possibly know anything like this unless sex and trans are recorded accurately.

I have been concerned about this since what feels like the dawn of time. Research is very finely tuned, and it is vital that the conclusions reflect accurate results, which cannot be the case if people can record so-called 'gender' instead of sex.

More than once on here I have been accused of nitpicking and being 'obsessed' (a popular dig when someone refuses to be silenced about something) with this aspect of the debate, but it is important to all of us that we can see where there needs to be sex-based social policy and medical funding, and that the figures are accurate.

Mollygo

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.

Your last sentence made me laugh, Mollygo. Thanks for that.

I totally agree with the judgement of the Supreme Court, but I feel sorry for the likes of Pamela, fka John, who was fully transitioned and on the same Training course as I was, way back in the late 1990s. Pamela had spent the previous session on the course as John, alongside several of the current male students and was worried as to their possible reaction. Management asked us females if she could use the female toilets. We discussed it and agreed. Pamela was a lovely person, very nervous and very gentle. We adopted her as an "honorary woman". She was given tips on clothes, make-up and how to walk. She had no trouble from the other male students because we women made it perfectly clear she/he was under our protection. The Ladies was her sanctuary if required.

Before the 2010 act, I believe it was perfectly legal for a woman to use a Public men's toilet? (Although one would have to be desperate to do so given the usual state of them!). Usually a quick in, pee, out, while otherwise unoccupied, with a friend on guard at the door. Has that changed?

When I was young, ambiguously sexed babies were given an "official" sex on their birth certs by a doctor. Sometimes the Doctor guessed wrong and later development (and even later, DNA testing) proved it but their Birth certificates could not be changed and they remained, officially, the sex they weren't. That was rightfully corrected, eventually. But allowing Trans people to change their birth certificate was a step too far. Perhaps that will stop, although I don't think it is covered by the Supreme Court ruling.

And what would you have done if one of the women had said no.

Galaxy

And what would you have done if one of the women had said no.

Good question.
Like saying what would a hitherto unnoticed TW if he was asked to leave a women’s toilet block.

I wish there were a word to describe the people I’m sure we all mean when we say things like ‘unnoticed’, ‘quiet’ or ‘genuine’ in this context. Transpeople have different personalities, and may or may not be unnoticed or quiet, and who knows what genuine means? I’ve used all of those words but am aware that it sounds as though we are suggesting that all transpeople should be unassuming and meek, grateful for being allowed to live their lives in peace, and constantly vigilant about being outed. I don’t mean that at all, and don’t think others on these threads will either.

The point though, is that laws have to be clear, and applied to all. Everyone has to be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity. ‘You can use these facilities so long as you don’t make a fuss and nobody realises the truth’ is not a basis for law. People would end up being prosecuted for not getting their make-up right, or for talking back when someone makes a nasty comment.

This is why there needs to be a proper solution. Carla Denyer was on Peston last night and said that there was now a legal obligation to provide both single sex and trans facilities in pubs. The man from Wetherspoons was there, and neither he nor Robert Peston corrected her. Wetherspoons Man said it cost £100,000 per pub to install staff toilets, which would ruin most businesses - specially in hospitality which is a struggling sector anyway. The answer has to be that TW use the Gents, but with a big push to provide security and safety until attitudes change. I know women didn’t get that security and safety when we lost our spaces, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Or you know they organise and fundraise in the way women have to do over the last decade.
I think the trans descriptor helps no one, the needs and reasons for why a middle aged man transition appear to me very very different to why a young woman transitions.

I don’t think organising and fundraising would help, although the principle is sound. How can a disparate group of people fundraise to get plumbing altered in pubs across the land? It won’t always be feasible, and would be piecemeal at best.

Well women created refuges etc through their own organisation, or they could lobby the government to introduce third spaces. They have managed to convince society that sex is not binary, that womens spaces should belong to men and that language has to be altered, they seem quite resourceful to me. I also think as a campaign they keep bringing it back to toilets but if they don't want to use male facilities they will need prisons, refuges, etc.
To be honest if you had told me even three years ago that the PM would be announcing transwomen aren't wonen I wouldn't have believed you for a second so it seems anything is possible.
But then again the needs of men who identify as women, and women who identify as men are so different, I can see that would be a difficult campaign. And look at prisons do women who identify as men actually want to be in a prison with men who identify as women. And is it right to do that. I actually care about those women even though they don't believe they are women.

Doodledog
The point though, is that laws have to be clear, and applied to all. Everyone has to be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity. ‘You can use these facilities so long as you don’t make a fuss and nobody realises the truth’ is not a basis for law.

I’m not fixing singular blame on any government for allowing this to start or continue, or on any particular minister, except for Nicola Sturgeon.

But Doodledog’s statement above needs to be sent to KS, his ministers and the rest of the government, in big letters.

KS, as The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales, and was responsible for prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the state.

So now the Supreme Court has cleared his confusion about whether only females are women, he’s got great background knowledge and must be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity.

Let’s hope success, rather than failure at sorting this out, will be what he is remembered for.

I thought about NATs (non-aggressive trans) but I don’t really like using a negative)

How about LATs (law-abiding trans)

Or SEATs ((socially and emotionally aware trans)

Or maybe CATs (considerate and thoughtful trans)

Organisations are going to have to move to single cubicle toilets and changing rooms positioned for safe entrance I think.

I'm not sure of your point, Molly - the bolding is a bit confusing - but I doubt KS thinks the law can be applied on an 'if nobody realises, then it's ok' basis. Much as I feel for 'genuine' TW, the ones that pass can't get a different deal from those who can't - it would be horrible for all concerned, quite apart from being unjust. Sorry if that's not what you're saying, though 😀.

Galaxy I don't disagree with any of your post, but if CD is right about there being an obligation to provide provision for all groups there will have to be a lot of pragmatic decisions about what is meant by 'provision', or women will end up with the opposite of what we want, and all spaces will become unisex.

Also, much as I don't lay the blame for this at Starmer's door, I do think he should apologise to Rosie Duffield. She was treated very badly, and the buck does stop with him on that one.

As councils are stretched financially I doubt they will want to spend money on reorganising facilities. Other organisations may not want that cost either and as you fear doodledog they may just change the signs to unisex.
This would be a huge step backwards for women as we would have to share with transwomen and men.

Well women created refuges etc through their own organisation, or they could lobby the government to introduce third spaces

Absolutely this. Women have fought, campaigned, organised and paid for their own rights, "privileges" and benefits for the last 100 years! I don't consider it to be a woman's responsibility to start working out how the menz can get theirs. TRAs are savvy enough to organise a governing body for themselves, Stonewall. They're savvy enough to have figured out how to infiltrate national companies to do exactly what they want, influence governments, organise legal action, organise mass marches and demonstrations. A few sets of legally appropriate toilets shouldn't be out of the8r remit. This is their problem to solve, not ours.

Oh I agree with that doodledog, I don't think they will be get away with gender neutral, badenoch for example is already speaking out against that. I know things look a lot better than they did but I think we still need to be wary.

Hold the front page: Stonewall are in a pickle and have the begging bowl out. This article in The i is just packed with so many examples of their complete and utter lack of self awareness; This is a human rights grab, in line with Donald Trump’s policies. And it’s a reminder if you need one, of a cold fact of history: all rights can be ripped away. and Stonewall, Britain’s largest LGBT organisation, is in crisis. It’s plummeting financially, with rounds of redundancies as funding cuts hit. And its credibility and influence is plunging amid a national and global backlash against LGBT rights.

Has anyone got a tiny violin? 🎻

archive.is/yGTYs

I read that earlier, and it seemed like satire.

I think it's likely that the Equalities Commission guidance will include references to toilets in terms of recommending best practice for organisations.

They have made a commitment to give both women and trans people safe spaces/third spaces/neutral spaces and KS reiterated that in his PMQ statement yesterday.

I imagine any campaigns will address themselves to actual recommendations. Its going to be the details of provision that are difficult, ie cost, layout of buildings, what is there already etc.

Satire sums it up perfectly!