Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Carlotta

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Glory be! Well done to Women for Scotland for their persistence! 👏👏👏

They are amazing those women. They make them tough in Scotland

The fact that this had to be argued in court is utterly ridiculous. There again our PM struggles with identifying and understanding the difference between men and women.

Indeed SueDonim women all over the UK owe WFS the hugest debt of gratitude. This has not been an easy fight and the abuse they've endured has been horrendous.

🍾🍾🍾🍸🍸🍸 all round! Cheers everyone!

Hallelujah!

Rosie51

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

Then again David Lammy seemed to think Marie Antoinette won the Nobel Prize for physics.

Returning to politicians forced into cul-de-sacs of the their own making I never forget a reporter tying a very flummoxed Nicola Sturgeon up in knots over whether Isla Bryson, double rapist sex offender should be in a women's prison, and whether in fact she should be classified as a woman in the first place, if it wasn't such a serious issue it would have been hilarious, she couldn't answer with any clarity whatsoever. Thank goodness for her successor Humza Yousaf, who used a get out of jail free card to explain along the lines of, he/she was not a genuine trans woman, so that cleared that up. What a great recourse if the trans woman turns out to be a sex offender, it's simple, 'then they aren't a genuine trans woman at all' Unfortunately I don't think he gave women any guidance as to how they would be able to suss the genuine from the bogus. For Scottish women there was a kind of "just muddle along, you'll work it out or you won't, never mind, it's in the interests of inclusivity"

Isn’t it extraordinary that we are now living in such bizarre times that we are now celebrating a ruling stating only biological women are women?

Not that many years ago we would have been completely bemused that it was even under doubt.

Now that Starmer has his comfort blanket of the Court he might, just might, show some courage common sense and speak out on this whole sorry mess.

Yes they will, as I said several posts ago. politicalnerd I hope this increases your understanding of this issue.

news.stv.tv/politics/uk-supreme-court-rules-woman-means-biological-female

I don't believe Starmer cares one way or other about the real definition of women, transwomen, the place of cervixes et al; his response as always is calculated towards its effect on the electorate and ultimately support for Labour. The trans lobby has been surprisingly powerful and influential, and won't subside without a fight.

Well done those women, a hard battle justly won 👏👏👏

Some sense at last...

www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-legal-definition-of-woman-has-restored-sanity-to-the-law/

An interesting article from Debbie Hayton a transwoman who has had the full surgery.

A victory for commonsense. I hope, now, that medical staff can carry out their work without fear of suspension for " misnaming".

Carlotta 🎯

JenniferEccles

Isn’t it extraordinary that we are now living in such bizarre times that we are now celebrating a ruling stating only biological women are women?

Not that many years ago we would have been completely bemused that it was even under doubt.

We live in strange times! Bit like Alice in Wonderland some days. These trans activists are a bluddy nuisance. A vociferous minority group of men who wanted us all the think left was actually right.

TerriBull

Rosie51

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

Then again David Lammy seemed to think Marie Antoinette won the Nobel Prize for physics.

Returning to politicians forced into cul-de-sacs of the their own making I never forget a reporter tying a very flummoxed Nicola Sturgeon up in knots over whether Isla Bryson, double rapist sex offender should be in a women's prison, and whether in fact she should be classified as a woman in the first place, if it wasn't such a serious issue it would have been hilarious, she couldn't answer with any clarity whatsoever. Thank goodness for her successor Humza Yousaf, who used a get out of jail free card to explain along the lines of, he/she was not a genuine trans woman, so that cleared that up. What a great recourse if the trans woman turns out to be a sex offender, it's simple, 'then they aren't a genuine trans woman at all' Unfortunately I don't think he gave women any guidance as to how they would be able to suss the genuine from the bogus. For Scottish women there was a kind of "just muddle along, you'll work it out or you won't, never mind, it's in the interests of inclusivity"

Dangerous nonsense wasn’t it Terribull? Anyway now the Supreme Court has said what the squirming politicians dared not. 👏