Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Oh just remembered Starmer did say it wasn't right to say only women have a cervix, bowing down to the transmen are men chant.

I think that was David Lammy Carlotta who said while transwomen don't have ovaries with surgery and hormones they can 'grow' a cervix.

Speaking of cowardice, the Guardian's headline on the ruling is as you would expect. What a disappointment they are.

I seem to remember that Starmer also said that anyone could have a cervix. Imagine having that level of ignorance and being the leader of the country.

TerriBull I'd love for someone to ask him, and the others. I expect he'd just deflect. While I agree with much that Starmer is doing, his cowardice in this area has been a huge disappointment.

Yes I must say I will always hold a certain view on those who parroted the nonsense. It makes me hesitant to trust them on other issues as they have proved they will say absolutely anything.

Carlotta

Just wondering if our PM still holds the view that a tiny minority of women can have a penis That always sounded so contradictory, so wrong, just so down the rabbit hole of nonsense, in fact that full Humpty Dumpty rationale of "when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less" I think it's sad when anyone feels they have to bow to the pressure of whatever the zeitgeist of the moment is, if that lacks logic and sense and causes not only confusion but potential dangers.

Thank you Allira and Rosie51. I always find reductive statements on this subject like obsession with toilets or obsessed with what's in people's pants as a good indicator that they've got no more cogent argument to offer but don't have the self respect or dignity to admit that they're wrong. It matters not!

Well said Carlotta

Rosie51
Good point about the difference between gay rights and those demanded by trans.

The actions of some trans have impacted badly on both gays and lesbians.

Great post Carlotta.

Well said Carlotta

Well said Carlotta it's always been about so much more than toilets but the transactivists have always tried to reduce it down to "we just want to pee". When transactivists compare to gay rights the same arguments can be made, gay rights never took away from others or impacted on them they just afforded justified equality.

There is an obsession with toilets on GN. Is it because we sre all getting to a "difficult" stage of life?

Possibly. But there's a greater obsession with privacy, respect, dignity, fairness in sports, safety and women's choices. Way back when women were fighting for their own place in the world, they fought for their own spaces; they didn't demand that men gave up their space; they fought for their own. Men who think they're women have simply demanded that women give up those spaces, move over and make room for them, instead of fighting, like women did, for their own. I'd have expected a politics nerd to have been able to recognise that.

I've copied this over from X. There are so many implications from this ruling.

Colin Wynter KC
@QcWynter
Final point. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, its decision states what the law has always been, not what it should be from date of judgment onwards.
This has implications for cases concluded, cases currently being fought, employers' trans access policies & lots more.
Huge.

Here is the summary:

The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

Judges say the "concept of sex is binary" while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another

Transgender people still have legal protection from discrimination, the court adds - read the full 88-page judgement here

The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argued they only apply to people that are born female

The ruling brings "clarity and confidence" for women, and services such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs, a UK government spokesperson says

The judgement is on the BBC news website.

Rosie51

PoliticsNerd

OldFrill

This link explains why the case has reached the UK Supreme court and the implications of any judgement

It's far more than safe spaces for women
sexmatters.org/posts/updates/will-the-supreme-court-protect-womens-rights/

My tablet is denying access to that site. I think that may well tell me all I want to know about the article.

The Supreme Court judge who read out the judgement mentioned the sex matters organisation, so I'm afraid your tablet may be being a tyrannical bigot.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/its-a-win/

I think the link posted by OldFrill may have a typo in it (no hyphen), but yours works, Rosie51

Try Rosie51's link, PoliticsNerd. It worked on my tablet.

Thank you Rosie51. A great (sensible) day then. A wise judgement.

😂
Someone with better brains than us will know Galaxy!

This judgement has been made by the Supreme Court of the UK located opposite the HOP. There is no higher court in the UK, they cannot pursue it further here.

Or that is my understanding FGT. However so far I have predicted a win for Kamala, and a loss for the feminists today. So you know treat my advice with caution

Excellent then! 🎉

No it is the supreme Court there is no right to appeal.

How can the ruling possibly go against them now Carlotta?