Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

The law never changed, it was common sense that went out of the window

Hear hear

We can't have leaders who will lie or say anything because they are frightened of the press. It destroys trust as this has done.

Thanks Doodledog for another good analysis imo, of where we are

Doodledog Either way, I think that the way the media were prowling at the time of the election it would have been political suicide to go against the prevailing view that TWAW and that transpeople are the 'most vulnerable group in society'. Nobody on either political side spoke the truth, and that was shameful, but it was understandable if not excusable, particularly for Labour, who always has a baying press mob ready to criticise anything they say or do, with readers more than ready to quote soundbites and slogans. They would have been vilified as betraying the vulnerable, not caring about the alleged suicide attempts of transpeople and so on. I am not excusing their weasel words, but I understood why they did what they did.

All the same, I do think that women like Rosie Duffield deserve an apology. Not to be vindictive towards those who wronged her, but to show the rest of us that things have changed and that it is not business as usual - and just because an apology is deserved.

I agree with your first paragraph but wish they had felt they could be truthful. I hope the backlash from now accepting what many of us have been saying for years won't derail them.

For Rosie Duffield I think it's just common courtesy to apologise and say you regret the way the situation was handled (if indeed he does). I don't want to be vindictive but I do think honest acknowledgement of the way some, women in particular, have been wrongly vilified for stating truth needs doing.

Keir Starmer has said the ruling gives "much needed clarity". A biological female is a woman. A man cannot be a woman. Who knew?

The law never changed, it was common sense that went out of the window.

Men should never have been allowed/accepted in women's spaces. Men should never have been allowed to compete against women in sports. Men should never have been involved in counselling rape victims because they're trans women. A victim of rape should never have had to refer to her assailant as 'she' when giving evidence and no judge or defence counsel should ever have referred to a man on trial for rape or a sexual assault as 'she'.

Women should never have been referred too as 'chest feeders', 'people with a cervix' 'people who bleed' and 'birth givers'.

I still can't get my head around the fact that all the aforementioned has happened. It's like writing a really bad plot for a dystopian novel .

Carlotta

BBC news:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

Terrifying that he's needed supreme court judges to tell him that.

He believed they were not long ago. His spokesman, as he hasn't the backbone to say it directly, says he no longer believes that transgender women are women.
He waits for the decision to be made elsewhere and with a screech of brakes makes a spectacular U-turn.
My Granny would have said he likes to run with the hare and the hounds.

It takes a strong person to say "I was wrong" but I doubt there will be many apologies to the women who have been badly wronged.

This is not, and never has been a party political issue. It's not and never has been about left or right, or Labour or Tory. I found all the accusations on here of being right wing incredibly tedious and ill-informed.

My feeling has always been that of course intelligent people such as KS (and Johnson, Sunak ^et al^) knew that women had cervixes and no penises, and men had penises and no cervixes. Maybe there are some biological anomalies, and maybe what they meant was to say that men who had undergone surgical transition should be called women?

Either way, I think that the way the media were prowling at the time of the election it would have been political suicide to go against the prevailing view that TWAW and that transpeople are the 'most vulnerable group in society'. Nobody on either political side spoke the truth, and that was shameful, but it was understandable if not excusable, particularly for Labour, who always has a baying press mob ready to criticise anything they say or do, with readers more than ready to quote soundbites and slogans. They would have been vilified as betraying the vulnerable, not caring about the alleged suicide attempts of transpeople and so on. I am not excusing their weasel words, but I understood why they did what they did.

All the same, I do think that women like Rosie Duffield deserve an apology. Not to be vindictive towards those who wronged her, but to show the rest of us that things have changed and that it is not business as usual - and just because an apology is deserved.

Yes eazybee

People responded wrongly, not differently, to circumstances at the time,

but there are so many, even on GN who still aver that TW are women.

Oh it is absolutely not specific to Labour. Penny Mordaunt was useless, the lib dems were awful, I could go on.

There should most definitely be recognition of the miscarriages of justice that occurred as a result of trans activism; Rosie Duffield being one example, Kathleen Stock another, Sandie Peggie a third, and there are many, many more. It was not as though people did not object at the time; they did and were over-ruled, threatened with loss of jobs and put under intolerable pressure, and this was from their managers who had a duty of care. As has been said, extremely brave women, and the injustices they suffered should not be swept out of sight. Not: let's move on, (and forget all about it).
People responded wrongly, not differently, to circumstances at the time, and they are the ones who are going to have to make concessions. No shaving off women's cubicles to provide extra unisex lavatories for trans people. No-one ever discussed males invading female only spaces or the distress it might cause; now all anyone seems concerned about is how dreadful it will be for these people to use spaces designated for their own sex.

Carlotta

Not so much a damascene conversion Rosie51, probably more of a "oh shit, I could lose votes if I don't say this". I'm still waiting for the rowing back on ^"99.9%" of women "of course they haven't got a penis".^

I accept that politicians change their minds and policy because of consequences and events Carlotta.

I think one could "have a go" at politicians of many shades going back in time on this issue because its been a process of change and learning. As I have already said for example, Teresa May at the time she said it was in favour of self ID.

I've been through a long learning process myself by listening to different POV but don't believe that the red top and social media tendency to reduce the debate to what someone has said about penis's is helpful or productive.

Rosie51

Wyllow3 personally I think the blatant criticism and hounding of Rosie Duffield does merit an apology from Starmer. When he started his election campaign in Kent he very publicly shunned Kent's only sitting Labour MP, and didn't invite her to the launch. Why would you do such a thing other than to silently announce that she was persona non grata? Imagine how that felt when the only reason was that she had publicly stated that sex is binary, immutable and that woman means adult human female. Exactly what the Supreme Court has just confirmed and clarified the law has always meant.

Thats a difficult one Rosie.

Yes I think he was wrong and should have invited her to the launch, on the basis of agree to disagree policy wise because there are feminists with that POV in the Labour Party (they had a big banner in front of the Supreme Court celebrating with other women).
Many different views in the L Party as I know from endless meetings including of course those who backed the GRC legal gender-wise transwomen rights.

Not so much a damascene conversion Rosie51, probably more of a "oh shit, I could lose votes if I don't say this". I'm still waiting for the rowing back on "99.9%" of women "of course they haven't got a penis".

Carlotta

^The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.^

What?? The law was NOT different. A woman has ALWAYS been an female adult human being. A trans woman has ALWAYS been a male adult human being. And frankly, no, I don't think we should just "move on" from the outrageous number of women who lost their careers, their livelihoods and had their whole world turned upside down just for stating the bleedin' obvious. So yes, I think those women deserve an apology, particularly when one of those men is the leader of the country. Nothing says strength like the ability to acknowledge you've been wrong and apologise for it.

What I was referring to was that the GRA meant that a transwoman could ID as woman in terms of gender, and change their name and birth certificate and use female pronouns.

I certainly think we should remember and celebrate courageous women and some transwomen who spoke up against those aggressive men and all that they did.

I would also like to celebrate the transwomen who have had to suffer threats and violence too just because they were trans.

I just don't believe in mass accusatory campaigns as being positive going forward. (As opposed to celebrating, naming, remembering.)

Oops sorry correction, Starmer thought 0.1% of women were in possession of a penis.

Carlotta

BBC news:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

Terrifying that he's needed supreme court judges to tell him that.

5 minutes ago he thought 1% of women had a penis? Has he had a Damascene conversion

Wyllow3 personally I think the blatant criticism and hounding of Rosie Duffield does merit an apology from Starmer. When he started his election campaign in Kent he very publicly shunned Kent's only sitting Labour MP, and didn't invite her to the launch. Why would you do such a thing other than to silently announce that she was persona non grata? Imagine how that felt when the only reason was that she had publicly stated that sex is binary, immutable and that woman means adult human female. Exactly what the Supreme Court has just confirmed and clarified the law has always meant.

BBC news:

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

Terrifying that he's needed supreme court judges to tell him that.

The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.

What?? The law was NOT different. A woman has ALWAYS been an female adult human being. A trans woman has ALWAYS been a male adult human being. And frankly, no, I don't think we should just "move on" from the outrageous number of women who lost their careers, their livelihoods and had their whole world turned upside down just for stating the bleedin' obvious. So yes, I think those women deserve an apology, particularly when one of those men is the leader of the country. Nothing says strength like the ability to acknowledge you've been wrong and apologise for it.

The law was not different, those who interpreted it got it wrong.
Oh and we will absolutely be talking about who failed women and who showed courage. Courage is I think one of the most important qualities in a politician.

Personally I think there is enough conflict and distress and anger of many kinds moving forward, and practical and emotional dilemmas to solve, to really want to go back retrospectively and try and shame or demand apologies generally speaking unless in exceptional circumstances.

The law was such and such, it is now different, people responded to circumstances at the time.

Haven't we got enough to be going on with to try and make the new guidelines work and deal effectively with the men who would continue to cause trouble and distress not just for women but for many transwomen as well.

And the complexities ahead - what provision is needed where and how. And the real dilemmas that will continue to trouble beds in busy short of beds hospitals, and how best to navigate the distress when ill already, and so on.

I wonder if putting CCTV in toilet blocks would help. Not in the cubicles but in the wash basin area. I know some people would object but I wouldn't mind a camera seeing me wash my hands.
There is a toilet block I don't go to as you have to walk down a corridor with lights clicking on as you go. The women's toilets are at the far end. The men's nearer the entrance. It is always empty. These sort of places are good for anyone with evil intent.

Coffee shops, restaurants etc. in the UK or the many I’ve used abroad, with one loo are, as has been said, not really a problem.

There is no room in them for demonstrating that you’re a TW in a women’s toilet.
If you’re sporting a beard whilst wearing a miniskirt to show off your hairy legs, you’d just be a weirdo.
No audience for your performance and, in view of the number of men who forget to fasten their fly, not even a chance to get a wow for letting it all hang out.

It’s the blocks. AND the use some TW have made of that opportunity which are the problem.
Same applies to the changing rooms. THOSE trans have spoilt it for females and all other trans but have no shame about doing that.
Even putting m trans toilet facilities won’t mean that THOSE trans would use them since they are convinced their lie is the truth, and will happily break the rule, sadly with the support of some females.