J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

I don't care what they look like, how lovely they are, no men in women's spaces

Correct. My brother, brother in law and my son are all lovely, kind and gentle men. Still don't want to take my clothes off in front of them.

Issues are being discussed already - this one on all women lists.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62g7007kxko

Sooner the Equalities Commission can clarify individual issues the better.

Yes I saw that. I have quite conflicting feelings about all women short list and their usefulness but if they exist they are for women not men.

They are important in some areas, such as intimate care, and for entirely different reasons in the Arts, where women's voices often go unheard. We pass on our culture and norms through the Arts, so it is vital that all groups are represented. That includes all social classes, both sexes, and yes, the voices of transpeople too, but there is no way to do this without being sure that when someone says they are in one category it is the truth. If anyone can enter the women's category it is entirely meaningless, and often it only exists at all because the genre is massively dominated by men.

Oh no I don't mean in intimate care services I see that as a completely separate thing.
I suppose I was thinking about politics, I think over 50 % of Labour Mps are now women? Now you could argue that AWS has achieved that but you could then argue that they are no longer necessary. I would also then look over at the tory party, who whatever you may feel about the individual women concerned, have had much greater success with women in the ultimate position of power.

I think AWS is not necessary ATM but a useful tool should it be needed.
In other contexts it's still an issue. I listened to Front Row tonight (R4 Arts programme for those who don't know) and we are still busy bringing to light women from the past lost in History.

Sunak may have blocked a reform of something that had gone well far enough:

Are you talking about Nicola Sturgeon's gender recognition certificates? Gone well enough??
He made it clear enough about men and women. It wasn't the Conservatives who could not tell the truth about penises and cervixes.

Sunak did nothing to clarify the situation or to defend women who lost careers and were persecuted for speaking the truth.

When the SNP went too far he blocked their progress with the GRA, but that was as far as it went. There was no intervention to stop Stonewall from coercion or to stop employers from forcing people to declare pronouns against their will, nothing was done about women's sport, research issues (even the census had a question about so-called 'gender' rather than sex.

I really don't agree that he made it clear enough about men and women. If he had, we wouldn't be here now, as there would have been no need for last week's ruling.

IMO the politician who did the most irrevocable harm to women was Nicola Sturgeon. Her catastrophic meddling in the transgender prisons, rape crisis centres and gender ID is still causing headline news in Scotland today. Dreadful woman.

Carlotta

IMO the politician who did the most irrevocable harm to women was Nicola Sturgeon. Her catastrophic meddling in the transgender prisons, rape crisis centres and gender ID is still causing headline news in Scotland today. Dreadful woman.

And more shameful because she is (presumably) a woman.
If we can’t rely on women to protect women
. . .

This seems rather relevant Mollygo

Rosie51

This seems rather relevant Mollygo

Amazingly accurate!

I really don't agree that he made it clear enough about men and women. If he had, we wouldn't be here now, as there would have been no need for last week's ruling.

It was perfectly clear, and should not have needed spelling out, but a great many people chose to ignore it, particularly those who followed the shining light of Starmer.

Yes, it was all Starmer’s fault 😂

Sunak made it so perfectly clear that there was a need for a Supreme Court ruling to clarify it years later.

I don’t know what got into Nicola Sturgeon. During Covid she was riding high, and seemed sensible and pragmatic (at least compared to Johnson, which is admittedly a low bar), but then she seemed to throw it all away over a principle she couldn’t even defend. The interview about Isla Bryson would have been the nail in the coffin of any politician - it wasn’t just that I didn’t agree with the notion that men could become women, it was that NS couldn’t explain why she felt they could. For someone usually so articulate she just fell apart when asked a simple question. To be fair, nobody ever answered the simple questions on this topic, but if someone is making controversial policies based on a principle surely they would at least be able to defend that principle coherently. Politicians are coached in what to say about such things but she still couldn’t do it.

It was as though she had had a rationality bypass when it came to the subject. Very odd.

She thought she was the 'good guy' so she didn't have to justify her views. That certainty is the undoing of a lot of people. Alastair Campbell is demonstrating it beautifully at the moment. His explanation seems to be I talked to my wife and daughter so now I know what to think. It's bizarre.

I know what you mean about those who want to be seen as kind and tolerant etc, and how they frame those who disagree as unkind and intolerant (we’ve seen that in action often enough 🙄) but NS will have had advisors, scriptwriters and so on. Fighting for something that you don’t understand - like an article of faith - is just idiotic for a politician at that level.

It was like watching a Shakespearean tragedy - the protagonist can’t overcome the tragic flaw and there are bodies all over the stage at the end.

Water under the bridge now, though.

Rosie51

Wyllow Now he has made clear he will follow what has now come into law

It hasn't 'come into law'. As many KCs have stated the Supreme Court don't have the power to change or make laws they can only adjudicate and interpret the law. The Supreme Court has confirmed in the EA it has always been that sex means biological sex otherwise none of the protections made sense. Nothing has changed except we now all know this for a fact. Many organisations and businesses have been breaking the law because they, like too many politicians, let Stonewall indoctrinate them with Stonewall's preferred version. This goes across all parties.

Thank you Rosie for pointing this out. I cannot believe the amount of discussions on TV or radio where they miss this crucial point.
No law has been changed no rights have been taken away.
They clarified existing law confirming that sex means biological sex male or female nothing else.

Carlotta

I'd like to add my vote of thanks to JKR for her unwavering dedication to women's rights. Several other people who I believe deserve a mention are Sharon Davies, Julie Bindell, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, Gil House, Justine Roberts, Graham Lineham, Roz Adams...... so many people who lost their jobs, had their their income, careers, families, personal safety impacted by threats of harm and death by men who cannot tolerate being told NO.

Totally agree Carlotta.

Whitewavemark2

Starmer is first and last a lawyer.

He follows the rule of law.

What he actually thinks - is his private opinion.

My opinion is that the Judge was right when he advised that this should not be looked at as a victory for anyone, and I am concerned that whilst there has been a settlement of a definition of a woman, it has not addressed the issue of a minority, who identify entirely with the opposite sex into which they were born.

In fact I think this judgement is only part of the answer to the entire issue.

I completely agree

I’m conflicted and I’ll happily admit it.

I do think women and men should have separate changing rooms and loos.

I also think that there should exist unisex changing rooms, loos etc, not instead of male and female, but in addition.

I think women deserve and should rightly have protection.

However, I know a transgender person, transitioned from female to male, has had surgery, hormone treatment and looks and sounds like a man and lives as a male married to a biological female.

Are transgender people not entitled to protection as well (not instead of women)

The majority of people who have committed serious heinous crime are biological males, who are completely straight and have “adopted” transgender status purely to commit crimes against woman. These are disgraceful, disgusting excuses of humans and should be rightly punished.

I do fear for genuine transgender people, whether one believes it’s right or wrong, and would hate to see them put in danger , some people, mainly men, have a very low tolerance level of “different” people and my fear is they will simply use this as an excuse for violence.

Also, how on earth can this be properly enforced, as it should be, to afford the protection ALL women deserve.

Neither of my lesbian daughters, now adults, look “masculine”, but my late SIL looked very masculine. How will these women prove they are women if stopped or should they carry their birth cert around with them?

I totally agree Cossy, but the transactivists will not accept this compromise, they want biological womens spaces... here in lies the problem.
It really is up to the male population to solve this problem,

Bridie22

I totally agree Cossy, but the transactivists will not accept this compromise, they want biological womens spaces...
This!

Cossy

I’m conflicted and I’ll happily admit it.

I do think women and men should have separate changing rooms and loos.

I also think that there should exist unisex changing rooms, loos etc, not instead of male and female, but in addition.

I think women deserve and should rightly have protection.

However, I know a transgender person, transitioned from female to male, has had surgery, hormone treatment and looks and sounds like a man and lives as a male married to a biological female.

Are transgender people not entitled to protection as well (not instead of women)

The majority of people who have committed serious heinous crime are biological males, who are completely straight and have “adopted” transgender status purely to commit crimes against woman. These are disgraceful, disgusting excuses of humans and should be rightly punished.

I do fear for genuine transgender people, whether one believes it’s right or wrong, and would hate to see them put in danger , some people, mainly men, have a very low tolerance level of “different” people and my fear is they will simply use this as an excuse for violence.

Also, how on earth can this be properly enforced, as it should be, to afford the protection ALL women deserve.

Neither of my lesbian daughters, now adults, look “masculine”, but my late SIL looked very masculine. How will these women prove they are women if stopped or should they carry their birth cert around with them?

I agree Cossy.

I agree, and I am not arguing for TW to be allowed to access the Ladies or other female facilities, but until the men get their acts together and sort things out (which with the best will in the world could take some time) there needs to be a plan.

I don't know what that plan can be, as leaving aside the TRAs, there are TW who would be mortified if anyone found out their secret, as they value privacy, which is fair enough. It may well be the case that people do know, but people convince themselves of all sorts of things, and not everyone wants to talk about personal things all the time. I do think that now the court has ruled the way it has we need to keep our collective eyes on the ball, but I also think that now we have the principle sorted out (ish) we can afford to be considerate to those who mean us no harm.

The TRAs and 'allies' have really messed things up for the other TW, haven't they? Insisting that TW are actually women was a step too far, and their refusal to dial back from that and insist that 'gender' is optional showed itself for the folly it is when cases such as Isla Bryson came to light, and sport was so badly affected.

I wonder if the stardust will lose its sparkle amongst the young non-binary and 'gender-fluid'? I really hope so, but it is, of course, too late for the ones who had surgery or hormones. I hope the adults who encouraged the 'authentic selves' nonsense are suitably ashamed.

Yes I have no idea why feminists are being asked to sort this problem, we didn't create it. Those who told men they could be women did that, it was a terrible thing to do.