Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Oh and for those who moan on that it is just middle aged, or elderly women moaning on the internet. Would you like to guess where the three women who won that judgement today met? On Mumsnet. Maybe just maybe don't underestimate the power of middle aged women.

But the Gender Recognition Act needs tackling. Apparently possession of a certificate, after following certain procedures and paying £5,allows a man to claim he is 'officially' a woman, but not legally, I believe. He needs to be identified as a transwoman, officially male, otherwise statistics will be flawed.
This seems to me to be a great unkindness, letting these individuals indulge their fantasy that they can become a woman, simply through indulging a desire and imitating the actions and lifestyle of a woman.
What a ridiculous situation.

So, with that certificate I could have an examination by a nurse with me thinking she’s a woman, but in reality the nurse is a man with a £5 certificate? 🤷‍♀️

No this clarifies single sex provision. If you ask for provision by a woman it means biological sex. If organisations interpret it differently then the law would be against them.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

So, with that certificate I could have an examination by a nurse with me thinking she’s a woman, but in reality the nurse is a man with a £5 certificate? 🤷‍♀️

Oh I remember those who argued this one with phrases like,
You can’t always tell
Or
It’s up to women (AHF) to say if they’re not happy that a TW has turned up to examine them, but that’s transphobic

I hope this latest ruling would prevent a TW convinced of his own you can’t tell continuing to lie in these situations.

Defining a woman? How far down the rabbit hole have we gone that courts should even need to debate it.🤬
Prepare now, after this judgement for the( rabid )wing trans activists to start yelling.

Galaxy

Oh and for those who moan on that it is just middle aged, or elderly women moaning on the internet. Would you like to guess where the three women who won that judgement today met? On Mumsnet. Maybe just maybe don't underestimate the power of middle aged women.

Exactly
It ain’t the youngsters going to be doing it.

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

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.

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.

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.

Word salad

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.

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.

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.

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?

Jock isn't an offensive term Luminance.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

“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?

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.