What's going on with all this gender stuff?

[Alexia]

Last time I checked the brain is biological too.

You are more defined by what is between your ears than what is - or isn't - between your legs.

[Dr Lobster*]

It’s been interesting reading back through this thread.

So, today of course, the Supreme Court provided some much needed clarity over some of the very questions and challenges I proposed.

Not only in reality, but in law, we now know that transgender women are not women.

The practical problems of asserting that transgender women are the same as biological women has been plain for all to see, in the case of women’s spaces, sports, and policy.

Let’s hope this is the start to bringing some sanity around the discussion.

[WillPS]

They clarified a point in the Equality Act 2010.

Nothing has changed. It still isn't complicated.

[bilky asko]

Indeed - a law written 15 years ago didn't adequately consider trans people, and the Supreme Court confirmed that. If the people in charge of Labour weren't sympathetic to anti-trans bigots, or openly anti-trans, then the law could easily be changed to enshrine the rights of trans people.

What it does do is allow people to be openly bigoted thinking that they have the backing of law, no longer pretending they have "legitimate concerns" or that there are "questions" to be answered.

[Sput]

Not only in reality, but in law, we now know that transgender women are not women.

No, just in law. The rest is your belief, so regardless of how politely you put it, it’s still an unkind and disrespectful thing to say.

[james2001]

What it does do is allow people to be openly bigoted thinking that they have the backing of law, no longer pretending they have "legitimate concerns" or that there are "questions" to be answered.

And we've got one of them in this very thread.

[barcode]

The court Cleary states what it believe it be correct interpretation of the current law.

The court also said Trans people are still protected by equity act and you cant be bigoted or prejudice etc

However it seem very likely any of the groups will back down and only way to move forward would be to change the law to have 3 genders.

[cdd]

The judgment does not provide any moral clarity at all (nor is it meant to). It's strictly an interepretation of the text of the law based on various factors, like the meaning of "man" and "woman" in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, whether it's coherent for a trans man with a GRC to qualify as a preganant man (conflict with existing law), for a trans women to be considered lesbian (based on prior references to sex), the and fact that GRCs are themselves private documents. Perhaps most ironically, the fact GRC holders are given specific extra rights in the EA was given as a reason why it would be inconsistent to afford many of the same rights based on their assigned gender.

These are all quite interesting points in interpreting the act and I can understand and accept the reasoning, except that this all is an irrelevant distraction from the question of how we should treat people. The fact that the judgment cites legislation from the 1970's ought to be a clue there.

I do agree with the OP is that it's good to have clarity on the issue of law, and generally agree that change like this should be deliberate. I suspect I may disagree wildly with the OP on what the next steps should be. Many of the people celebrating this judgment wish to draw a line under discussions (but not before a lot of crowing) - whereas in reality a new conversation is needed to determine policy in the light of this interpretation, concluding in some new legislation. This would likely be to afford sex-based rights to trans people, with potentially some very niche carve-outs for edge cases (like sport). Unfortunately, I suspect this won't happen with the present government, but that doesn't prevent us from treating non-cisgendered people with respect in the meantime.

[Dr Lobster*]

Not only in reality, but in law, we now know that transgender women are not women.

No, just in law. The rest is your belief, so regardless of how politely you put it, it’s still an unkind and disrespectful thing to say.

It is not intended to be unkind, or disrespectful, and I've said before, I would never advocate any sort of unkindness to anybody on the basis of their identity, or beliefs, or anything. I am kind to everyone I meet. But to say a trans women is a women, is to say that a biological male is the same as my mother, which we both know is not correct.

I suspect that you believe a women is a social construct, an identity. I do not agree with that. And the reason I don't agree with it that as soon as you detach the biology from men and women, if you are left with anything at all, it is just a list of stereotypes, which are of course reductive.

If we are to believe that a women is an identity, we need to be able define it, objectively, so it can be used in law, and policy. We need to know where a women begins and ends - and the problem at the heart of this debate is that nobody has been able to do so coherently.

I do agree with the OP is that it's good to have clarity on the issue of law, and generally agree that change like this should be deliberate. I suspect I may disagree wildly with the OP on what the next steps should be. Many of the people celebrating this judgment wish to draw a line under discussions (but not before a lot of crowing) - whereas in reality a new conversation is needed to determine policy in the light of this interpretation, concluding in some new legislation. This would likely be to afford sex-based rights to trans people, with potentially some very niche carve-outs for edge cases (like sport). Unfortunately, I suspect this won't happen with the present government, but that doesn't prevent us from treating non-cisgendered people with respect in the meantime.

I certainly didn't see it as a victory, I felt sad that there was a lot of abuse and vitriol thrown around, but, clarity around sex in law is desperately needed.

I agree, I think there is some room for sex based rights for trans people, but to get there, trans people will have to cede some ground also. As I have suggested previously, I can see progress being made if we update our language - transgender = people who identify as, transexual = people who have had SRS. It seems possible to me that sex based rights could be afforded to people who fall into the transexual category.

[Tardisrotor]

I subscribe to the theory that 99% of "trans" people are trying to live their lives in peace and that it's the remaining 1% that are kicking up a fuss. I'm hopeful that sensible adjustments will be made to accommodate the necessary changes to regulations and facilities.

[barcode]

As you can tell I'm not well versed with all this stuff but I have gone looking to see what whats , Can anyone confirm the following is what it all boils down to?

* Trans people and certain non trans people believe its what in your mind that define you as male or female.
* Many woman and man believe its your physical body that define you as male or female.

However both side can be rude and extreme and both side should treat each better.