I’ve had a FaceTime chat with my lovely daughter which was helpful. Her future, and where it might be safe for her to live, is under consideration. We realise that given current trends she may no longer feel safe in the UK and aim for an EU country
Meanwhile I note that the rules for searches by the traffic police have been changed in the light of the Supreme Court ruling (and in advance of any guidance by way of Statutory Instrument from the government). Put simply, if necessary my daughter would be strip searched by a male officer.
I’ve done some more research into Baroness Falkner and the transphobing of the EHRC and that organisation has been subverted. In my opinion, as currently run, it no longer deserves the title of Equality and Human Rights Commission.
My daughter, who followed every legal aspect of transitioning (a long, tedious and independently checked process) to the letter and obtained a GRC, is having her legal rights subverted by a legal ruling.
Aren't 'single-sex spaces' a bit old-fashioned? For many years our local public swimming pool has had a 'unisex' changing room where everyone uses a cubicle. It's only when you go to the local private gym (where I briefly had membership) that people are wandering around the single-sex changing room and communal showers with nothing on. And on the 2 occasions I had major surgery I was fortunate enough to have (on the NHS) a private room rather than be on a ward or 'bay' (a 6-bed ward). Surely the country can afford to progress in that direction?
Surely the answer is to be more adult about this, recognise biological reality and the reality that there are trans people? The answer seems to me to follow the example of Denmark and create, in effect, a third gender category of 'X'. My trans friends have long advocated for this - as one, David, says It is fact that I was born female and that Debbie lived and achieved for 20 years before I came about, and I don't want to deny that. I'm not male now, I'm a third gender.
I think trying to shoehorn trans people into the two specific categories many insist on is wrong - they are their own people and we must accept that and make provision for them as that.
How is it more "adult" to force people into a third category who don't want to be there? Non-binary people exist, but not all trans people are non-binary and pretending they are doesn't solve anything.
Whether or not people want to be in a third category, if you have gained/acquired the secondary sex characteristics of a gender different from that of your cells you are neither wholly one or the other. The only people for whom this is not a choice are hermaphrodites - they are truly non-binary.
No one would suggest three categories of Male, Female and Trans for things like loos or changing rooms, but Male, Female and Unisex or Shared would seem a reasonable solution. If someone identifies as non-binary they can use the Shared/Unisex option. Besides, if someone declares they are non-binary, why would they want to use a defined space?
(ETA Hidden text as this post uses a word to describe intersex people that is generally regarded as a slur by those to whom it is commonly applied. Other terms are available - Tubbs, Epiphanies Host)
Surely the answer is to be more adult about this, recognise biological reality and the reality that there are trans people? The answer seems to me to follow the example of Denmark and create, in effect, a third gender category of 'X'. My trans friends have long advocated for this - as one, David, says It is fact that I was born female and that Debbie lived and achieved for 20 years before I came about, and I don't want to deny that. I'm not male now, I'm a third gender.
I think trying to shoehorn trans people into the two specific categories many insist on is wrong - they are their own people and we must accept that and make provision for them as that.
How is it more "adult" to force people into a third category who don't want to be there? Non-binary people exist, but not all trans people are non-binary and pretending they are doesn't solve anything.
Whether or not people want to be in a third category, if you have gained/acquired the secondary sex characteristics of a gender different from that of your cells you are neither wholly one or the other.
In your opinion. The whole problem here is cis folk trying to tell trans folk what they "really" are.
Surely the answer is to be more adult about this, recognise biological reality and the reality that there are trans people? The answer seems to me to follow the example of Denmark and create, in effect, a third gender category of 'X'. My trans friends have long advocated for this - as one, David, says It is fact that I was born female and that Debbie lived and achieved for 20 years before I came about, and I don't want to deny that. I'm not male now, I'm a third gender.
I think trying to shoehorn trans people into the two specific categories many insist on is wrong - they are their own people and we must accept that and make provision for them as that.
How is it more "adult" to force people into a third category who don't want to be there? Non-binary people exist, but not all trans people are non-binary and pretending they are doesn't solve anything.
Whether or not people want to be in a third category, if you have gained/acquired the secondary sex characteristics of a gender different from that of your cells you are neither wholly one or the other.
In your opinion. The whole problem here is cis folk trying to tell trans folk what they "really" are.
Yes, exactly. Many have commented that the court did not invite views from trans people, too much like real life probably.
Trans people are also a bit complicated. A trans woman, for example, could be anywhere between a person with a body of standard male appearance who identifies as a woman, to a person with male genetics who has had extensive surgery to acquire a standard female appearance, or anywhere in between.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
If I’m right then this isn’t as bad as many are saying, because it won’t matter which organs someone was born with, only the organs they have right now.
And if I’m wrong, I’m pretty confident that my interpretation could be successfully argued in the courts.
Trans people are also a bit complicated. A trans woman, for example, could be anywhere between a person with a body of standard male appearance who identifies as a woman, to a person with male genetics who has had extensive surgery to acquire a standard female appearance, or anywhere in between.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
Have you seen anything to support this interpretation from the court? "Biological" in this context is almost always used as a euphemism for chromosome and/or genitalia at birth, i,e. cis women. I've never seen it used to cover trans women who've had bottom surgery.
Trans people are also a bit complicated. A trans woman, for example, could be anywhere between a person with a body of standard male appearance who identifies as a woman, to a person with male genetics who has had extensive surgery to acquire a standard female appearance, or anywhere in between.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
Have you seen anything to support this interpretation from the court?
Not as such, but it feels logical to me. If the issue is being driven by women not wanting there to be any penises in women-only spaces then in practice someone who doesn’t have a penis will go unchallenged.
I’ll also freely admit that this matches my views on the whole transgender issue, namely that biology (or more accurately morphology) is what really matters, but that it is something that can be changed surgically should a given individual want to change their sex.
Trans people are also a bit complicated. A trans woman, for example, could be anywhere between a person with a body of standard male appearance who identifies as a woman, to a person with male genetics who has had extensive surgery to acquire a standard female appearance, or anywhere in between.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
If I’m right then this isn’t as bad as many are saying, because it won’t matter which organs someone was born with, only the organs they have right now.
And if I’m wrong, I’m pretty confident that my interpretation could be successfully argued in the courts.
You might want to actually read the judgement, because your understanding doesn't seem to comply with the words used by the judges.
In their definition of terms (especially paragraphs 6 and 7): "a person who is a biological
woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex", "We also use the expression “biological sex” ... to describe the sex of a person at birth".
In the BBC piece linked above by @Barnabas62 Kerrie Meyer, a trans woman, says she believes a gender recognition certificate should only be granted if someone has undergone gender reassigment surgery.
Is that the general view in the trans community?
The bigots absolutely don't care - except when it suits them - whether people have had bottom surgery or not - they attack all trans people.
Meanwhile the vast majority of gender policing and harassment is done on how people look - so cis women get attacked and harassed too if deemed insufficiently gender conforming.
Also I'm a woman and this nonsense is absolutely not in my name and as far as I can see makes me and other women much less safe.
Biology contradicts this crude binary, as has been posted and linked before several times. It's not biologists coming out with this it's people who misunderstand or deliberately fail to understand that sex is a spectrum with multiple factors at work
Also the issue is not being driven by women, polling shows that the most transphobic group are older men. Women, especially lesbian women are far more trans accepting than older men. A common tactic of hate groups awash with conservative money is to try to pretend they are rights movements and therefore they hide behind bigot activists from minorities or who aren't white and male and prefer to fund these basically unrepresentative Astroturfed groups discretely.
There are of course rich female bigots involved too. There have always been female fascists and bigots but rich powerful people who zealously dedicate themselves to hate politics against harmless minorities are hate mongers and bullies. It's bully driven.
If you want to know what trans people think go to places like What the Trans, Transwrites, QueerAF, Assigned Media or Erin in the Morning etc. or look for trans and nonbinary writers. Don't take stuff from the BBC - they are bad for handpicking stuff in ways that favour outliers to further notions of 'balance' and 'impartiality' which don't represent trans people.
I’m going to a Q&A with Wes Streeting on Wednesday evening - I’ve tabled a trans focused question, but they are screened ahead of time so I am not optimistic I’ll get to speak. But you know, you can but try.
In the BBC piece linked above by @Barnabas62 Kerrie Meyer, a trans woman, says she believes a gender recognition certificate should only be granted if someone has undergone gender reassigment surgery.
Is that the general view in the trans community?
Not in my experience (struggling to find links - mostly going by what trans folk on bsky say about it). Not everyone can access surgery, bottom surgery in particular is complex and has risks of complications. It seems to be a very personal question whether the changes wrought by hormone therapy are sufficient or whether surgery is required to relieve any dysphoria a person might have.
Strongly agreed that trans folk do not generally exclude people based on how much surgery they have had or want. Trans folk tend to be poorer than cis folk, so very many trans folk want more gender conforming something (surgery or else) than they can afford. Also, most trans folk I come across understand that not everyone needs or wants surgery.
It is much more common for trans women to want surgery but many of my trans friends and correspondents would emphasize that every trans person is on a path, and you don't tell other people how to transition or how to be transitioned or when they should be done transitioning.
If you want to be a safe person or even a person who people are willing to trust with their own trans-ness, try not to define gender based on biological characteristics or physical ones. When I was born, they thought I was female, but when I was born, I was also 8.5 pounds (under 4kg.) I'm NB not female and I'm significantly larger than 8.5lb/4kg. My friends genetics said her breast should give her cancer and kill her the way it had her mother, aunt, and grandmother. She had it removed and is not dead. We are not bound by our past selves or our genetics.
Surely the answer is to be more adult about this, recognise biological reality and the reality that there are trans people? The answer seems to me to follow the example of Denmark and create, in effect, a third gender category of 'X'. My trans friends have long advocated for this - as one, David, says It is fact that I was born female and that Debbie lived and achieved for 20 years before I came about, and I don't want to deny that. I'm not male now, I'm a third gender.
I think trying to shoehorn trans people into the two specific categories many insist on is wrong - they are their own people and we must accept that and make provision for them as that.
How is it more "adult" to force people into a third category who don't want to be there? Non-binary people exist, but not all trans people are non-binary and pretending they are doesn't solve anything.
Whether or not people want to be in a third category, if you have gained/acquired the secondary sex characteristics of a gender different from that of your cells you are neither wholly one or the other.
In your opinion. The whole problem here is cis folk trying to tell trans folk what they "really" are.
Hosting
@theorganist, Please don’t speak on behalf of other groups or assume that one person within a community speaks on behalf of them all. Thank you.
I’m going to a Q&A with Wes Streeting on Wednesday evening - I’ve tabled a trans focused question, but they are screened ahead of time so I am not optimistic I’ll get to speak. But you know, you can but try.
I'll be interested to hear your thoughts afterwards...
True. It's common enough to have private cubicles within single-sex changing rooms, so people who prefer not to expose their nakedness to other users of the changing room can change in there, but the majority of facilities I've been in in the UK in the past decade or so have also had a communal open area with a couple of benches in which people routinely change.
In such a facility, going in a private cubicle prevents other people from seeing you naked; it does not prevent you from seeing other people naked.
True. It's common enough to have private cubicles within single-sex changing rooms, so people who prefer not to expose their nakedness to other users of the changing room can change in there, but the majority of facilities I've been in in the UK in the past decade or so have also had a communal open area with a couple of benches in which people routinely change.
In such a facility, going in a private cubicle prevents other people from seeing you naked; it does not prevent you from seeing other people naked.
Whereabouts? In Northants and Oxon we get around the leisure centres etc and I can’t think of a single (really not one) place where you would see other people naked in a changing room. I mean, obviously you’re describing what your experience is, but that’s just not how things are in the East Midlands.
Well, of course they were changed by the process – that’s the whole point of it – but the shape and texture of their bodies was the least of it. Slowly, I watched them become more self-assured, happier, more profoundly themselves. I’ve no idea if they would describe it in this way but, from the outside, I’d compare it to putting on a pair of comfortable trainers, after years spent walking around in shoes a size too small. We can, as people, get used to more or less everything, but what a relief it is to finally wear something that fits
You see people start to blossom and become happier and healthier as they transition and come out. My experience of watching people close to me come out is similar to hers.
Over the past decade, transphobia has crept further and further into both public and elite discourse, with no off-ramp in sight. There are a thousand columns to be written on why that is, but what this one wants to say is: god, what a waste. What a waste, to watch people you love live in fear when they should be feeling freer than ever. What a waste, to make transgender people feel so unwelcome, with so few attempts made to understand what it’s like to be them.
Campaigners may speak of chromosomes and gametes, but that only helps them to obscure the truth further. Trans people exist and will keep existing. Their lives are as worthy as yours or mine. I feel lucky to have watched so many of my friends blossom; my only wish is that, in the future, those who come after them will be able to do so in a world that doesn’t try to squash them back down.
(Bold mine)
This I completely agree with - it"s a waste and I'd go further, it's the grotesque bullying of harmless ordinary people.
In the BBC piece linked above by @Barnabas62 Kerrie Meyer, a trans woman, says she believes a gender recognition certificate should only be granted if someone has undergone gender reassigment surgery.
Is that the general view in the trans community?
No it isn't. I have my daughter to thank for my understanding.
And Louise, thank you for that post. My daughter truly emerged and is more comfortable in herself now.
If you want to know what trans people think go to places like What the Trans, Transwrites, QueerAF, Assigned Media or Erin in the Morning etc. or look for trans and nonbinary writers. Don't take stuff from the BBC - they are bad for handpicking stuff in ways that favour outliers to further notions of 'balance' and 'impartiality' which don't represent trans people.
And these forums represent the views of all trans people?
Probably not, but they are at least trans people speaking for themselves, not non-trans people speaking about life experiences they don’t have.
I suspect that trans voices struggle to get heard in the mainstream media, and, in the current climate, where things like the killing of Brianna Ghey happen, it will feel positively unsafe to speak out.
I suspect that trans voices struggle to get heard in the mainstream media, and, in the current climate, where things like the killing of Brianna Ghey happen, it will feel positively unsafe to speak out.
Coincidentally, the Supreme Court ruling came on the same day another judge in Manchester dismissed a complaint against the police for not taking action over the vile comments by Stuart Campbell (who doesn't seem to know how to say anything that isn't vile and hateful). When people can say such hateful things about a murdered young woman with impunity then it seems to me that we need stronger laws to protect people, not a watering down of the laws we already have.
@Tubbs I used a medical term to describe a medical condition
I'd be interested to know what medical text you gleaned the use of that term in reference to humans. Was it published in, say, the last century or so?
It would be inaccurate even if it were not offensive; the word describes organisms where individuals produce both male and female gametes which is very seldom true of intersex people.
Trans people are also a bit complicated. A trans woman, for example, could be anywhere between a person with a body of standard male appearance who identifies as a woman, to a person with male genetics who has had extensive surgery to acquire a standard female appearance, or anywhere in between.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
If I’m right then this isn’t as bad as many are saying, because it won’t matter which organs someone was born with, only the organs they have right now.
And if I’m wrong, I’m pretty confident that my interpretation could be successfully argued in the courts.
You might want to actually read the judgement, because your understanding doesn't seem to comply with the words used by the judges.
In their definition of terms (especially paragraphs 6 and 7): "a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex", "We also use the expression “biological sex” ... to describe the sex of a person at birth".
Indeed. Also note in para 6 that the ruling's definition of "trans woman" and "trans man" is narrower than appears to be the usage of most people on this thread:
A person who is a biological man, ie who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans woman”. Similarly, a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans man”.
And looking at the abbreviated version of the ruling, it appears that, under the Equality Act 2010 going forward, trans women and trans men receive this specific protection only by virtue of undergoing, or having undergone, gender reassignment. Any change to their physical characteristics as a result of gender reassignment has no effect on their legal status as a woman or a man. (See also para 199).
Protection from Discrimination
This interpretation of the EA 2010 does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC. Trans people are protected from discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. They are also able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman. A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection [248]-[263].
The protected characteristic under the EA 2010 is "gender reassignment", which is why quite a lot of authorities and organisations refer to violations as "gender reassignment discrimination". The words "trans people" and "trans women" in the above paragraph do *not* mean people with a transgender identity.
This road to dystopia is strewn with the bodies of those who don't conform.
I'm recommending places the trans+ people in my life recommend and it's not at all an exhaustive list hence the general 'trans and non binary writers'
My point is to hear from people where they themselves control the words and editorial rather than from places where folk can and do get cherry picked and selected to fit cis people's editorial agendas (or even very transphobic cis people's editorial agendas). It seems fairly reasonable media advice to me for people who want to get an idea if a given view or one they've heard is common or an outlier.
In the middle of a ferocious media assault on trans people which has run to tens of thousands of attack articles and pieces over more than ten years now, it's necessary to be ultra cautious about taking stuff from media outlets who are part of it - The BBC and The Guardian spring to mind. It's really not just the 'usual suspects'.
I would be more frightened if I was trans or non- binary but watching the capture and corruption of what I thought were respectable and high quality media sources has been horrifying for me. I have been in a position to 'see how the sausage is made' media-wise and it makes me realise how easily people can be demonised if there is a flow of money and even a small prejudiced group with the right social capital and privilege to unlock disproportionate media coverage from their mates and allies with the gatekeeping power.
No one is safe from our toxic media and while there are still some 'curate's egg' situations, they're almost 100% rotten on trans+ people. I can't recommend any of them - the willingness to platform the dishonest demonisation of a minority has been staggering. It should frighten us all.
@Tubbs I used a medical term to describe a medical condition
I'd be interested to know what medical text you gleaned the use of that term in reference to humans. Was it published in, say, the last century or so?
Well, there is this published in 2000, or this from 2023 (sorry, behind a paywall but there is a brief abstract free); or an article from 1995 if that's not too old for you, or 2008 if you're looking for something post-millennium.
@Tubbs I used a medical term to describe a medical condition
I'd be interested to know what medical text you gleaned the use of that term in reference to humans. Was it published in, say, the last century or so?
Well, there is this published in 2000, or this from 2023 (sorry, behind a paywall but there is a brief abstract free); or an article from 1995 if that's not too old for you, or 2008 if you're looking for something post-millennium.
Did you read those links closely? The first is a historical book - studying the changing uses of the term, from the asbtract:
"Alice Dreger, Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Michigan State University and adjunct faculty at the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, brings us this study of how and why medical and scientific men have construed sex, gender, and sexuality as they have. A 36 page long epilogue contains narratives of intersexuals treated according to the still-standard medical protocols developed in the 1950s and calls for change: "Surely, ...it will be familiarity rather than knowlege that finally takes away [intersexuals'] supposed 'strangeness.'""
The second doesn't mention it. The last is referring to the phenomena @KarlLB is talking about (which isn't going to be a blanket term corresponding to all intersex and/or trans people). The third mentions it - but the reference it draws in is here:
It references it two senses; firstly to reference the historical use of the term, and latterly to refer again to what @KarlLB referenced.
There are plenty of terms which were in historical common usage, which have later proved to be either inaccurate or offensive or (as in this case) both.
If I were having a historical discussion here where the term came up as it's in the source material I would still hidden text it here and note it's generally regarded as a slur.
I note that a host has already ruled to that effect on this thread so it's not up for grabs.
@Tubbs I used a medical term to describe a medical condition
I'd be interested to know what medical text you gleaned the use of that term in reference to humans. Was it published in, say, the last century or so?
Well, there is this published in 2000, or this from 2023 (sorry, behind a paywall but there is a brief abstract free); or an article from 1995 if that's not too old for you, or 2008 if you're looking for something post-millennium.
Did you read those links closely? The first is a historical book - studying the changing uses of the term, from the asbtract:
"Alice Dreger, Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Michigan State University and adjunct faculty at the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, brings us this study of how and why medical and scientific men have construed sex, gender, and sexuality as they have. A 36 page long epilogue contains narratives of intersexuals treated according to the still-standard medical protocols developed in the 1950s and calls for change: "Surely, ...it will be familiarity rather than knowlege that finally takes away [intersexuals'] supposed 'strangeness.'""
The second doesn't mention it. The last is referring to the phenomena @KarlLB is talking about (which isn't going to be a blanket term corresponding to all intersex and/or trans people). The third mentions it - but the reference it draws in is here:
It references it two senses; firstly to reference the historical use of the term, and latterly to refer again to what @KarlLB referenced.
There are plenty of terms which were in historical common usage, which have later proved to be either inaccurate or offensive or (as in this case) both.
Language evolves. It may not have been a slur then, but it considered a slur now. Please don’t use it.
And may I remind everyone that the Styx exists for all your Hosting query needs.
Of all the myriad awfulness of this situation, the thing that punched me in the gut wasn't the ideological capture of the EHRC or the abject capitulation of the political class (both are very much as-expected). No, it was turning on Radio 4 to hear that Ocado were apologising to Prosecco Stormfront (aka Mumsnet) was calling out their transphobia, going so far as to blame a temp.
I don't think I've ever been this close to despair about the state of society. Even while the economic system was steadily screwing everyone there was at least the consolation of social progress, of a greater degree of personal respect and kindness about difference than even when I was growing up. Now that's gone, and with it the expectation that reactionaries at least code their hatred. I'm very worried about what this ruling and the reaction to it.
That sounds like a smaller scale British version of what's being seen on a large scale in America with Trump where companies pre-emptively surrender instead of resisting when they see a shift in the wind. In the US companies have been pulling out of Pride sponsorships and dumping diversity initiatives.
I think this points to something to be borne in mind - there's the strict legal meaning of the decision which @pease and @Alan Cresswell were talking about up thread but there's also going to be what we could call a 'Cass effect' - people taking a transphobic document or decision way beyond what it actually says and using it as permission or cover to go much further. I think this is already having significant impacts that go beyond what it says.
In other better news, there have been a lot of protests against it all round the country. In Edinburgh today there was a large march to support Trans people - covered here in The National
(By the way, they're one of those 'Curate's eggs' I was talking about - they actually have a good non- binary columnist Steph Paton but will also platform rabidly anti-trans types from Alba - this report looks OK though)
I found this legally qualified post on FB from someone who considers themself to be a trans ally to be an interesting take on the legal implications of the judgment, and how it is not what so many, including the BBC, are claiming it to be.
I'm curious as to what the court based its judgment on. As already stated, not biological science, but a legal view. How is this arrived at?
Supposedly they inferred what parliament meant by "woman" and "sex" when writing the Equality Act 2010, ignoring that parliament will have done so in the full knowledge of the provisions of the GRA 2004 and could have spelled out if they intended to exclude trans women.
According to Melanie Field, who led the Equality Act drafting team in 2009-2010, the Supreme Court did *not* take account of this interpretation:
Having led the development and passage of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), I know that the policy and legal instructions underlying its drafting were based on the clear premise that, for a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), their “sex” for the purposes of the EA is that recorded on their GRC. This position, as it relates to sex discrimination law, was set out clearly in the explanatory notes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) - the Equality Act did not seek or purport to change that approach.
... Therefore there are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by Parliament.
...
The inclusion of the word “woman” in the pregnancy and maternity provisions was contentious – we were well aware of the possibility of a trans man with a GRC becoming pregnant. The drafting was eventually determined for political reasons, and reluctantly implemented by officials on the basis that the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, together with the explicit provision in the GRA that a GRC does not affect parenthood, would give the right result should a case ever be brought by a trans man in this situation. However, it is true that this undermines the coherence of the drafting and I fear that this anomaly played a significant role in the approach taken by the Court. This highlights the danger of allowing politics to influence legislative drafting...
What bothers me is that, if these questions were pertinent to the decision, why didn't the judges actually ask the likes of Field? This, coupled with the refusal to hear from any trans people, makes me wonder if the court was knobbled in some way. It's certainly a remarkably convenient judgment for cowardly shitlibs in government.
It doesn't mean that it was knobbled, does it? Judges follow political trends. The hatred of trans people is found all over the place now, why would courts be immune?
Judges being out of touch and having antediluvian attitudes have often bedevilled cases ( notoriously for example, on matters involving attitudes to women). I'm not sure you'd have to nobble British judges to get a stonkingly bad result on a subject like this. I think they could do it all on their own.
Judges being out of touch and having antediluvian attitudes have often bedevilled cases ( notoriously for example, on matters involving attitudes to women). I'm not sure you'd have to nobble British judges to get a stonkingly bad result on a subject like this. I think they could do it all on their own.
Yeah, you're both likely right.
It seems like such a massive flip from the outcomes in the Scottish courts and such an odd read of the legislation.
Judges being out of touch and having antediluvian attitudes have often bedevilled cases ( notoriously for example, on matters involving attitudes to women). I'm not sure you'd have to nobble British judges to get a stonkingly bad result on a subject like this. I think they could do it all on their own.
Yeah, you're both likely right.
It seems like such a massive flip from the outcomes in the Scottish courts and such an odd read of the legislation.
As an aside; Lord Sumption formerly of the UKSC was interviewed on PM on Friday; he indicated that the conclusions being drawn from the ruling are too broad, and that there is nothing in the ruling that prevents an organisation from offering trans inclusive services.
Judges being out of touch and having antediluvian attitudes have often bedevilled cases ( notoriously for example, on matters involving attitudes to women). I'm not sure you'd have to nobble British judges to get a stonkingly bad result on a subject like this. I think they could do it all on their own.
Yeah, you're both likely right.
It seems like such a massive flip from the outcomes in the Scottish courts and such an odd read of the legislation.
As an aside; Lord Sumption formerly of the UKSC was interviewed on PM on Friday; he indicated that the conclusions being drawn from the ruling are too broad, and that there is nothing in the ruling that prevents an organisation from offering trans inclusive services.
The entire public sector being required to adhere to sex assigned at birth is quite broad enough, whether that is down to the ruling itself of the bigots in the EHRC exploiting it.
Comments
There's a reason Phobia means both.
Meanwhile I note that the rules for searches by the traffic police have been changed in the light of the Supreme Court ruling (and in advance of any guidance by way of Statutory Instrument from the government). Put simply, if necessary my daughter would be strip searched by a male officer.
I’ve done some more research into Baroness Falkner and the transphobing of the EHRC and that organisation has been subverted. In my opinion, as currently run, it no longer deserves the title of Equality and Human Rights Commission.
My daughter, who followed every legal aspect of transitioning (a long, tedious and independently checked process) to the letter and obtained a GRC, is having her legal rights subverted by a legal ruling.
This BBC link confirms the transport police point.
No one would suggest three categories of Male, Female and Trans for things like loos or changing rooms, but Male, Female and Unisex or Shared would seem a reasonable solution. If someone identifies as non-binary they can use the Shared/Unisex option. Besides, if someone declares they are non-binary, why would they want to use a defined space?
(ETA Hidden text as this post uses a word to describe intersex people that is generally regarded as a slur by those to whom it is commonly applied. Other terms are available - Tubbs, Epiphanies Host)
In your opinion. The whole problem here is cis folk trying to tell trans folk what they "really" are.
Yes, exactly. Many have commented that the court did not invite views from trans people, too much like real life probably.
My understanding of the decision is that it’s designed to exclude the former from female-only spaces but not the latter. That, in short, a “biological female” is someone with a vagina and a “biological male” is someone with a penis.
If I’m right then this isn’t as bad as many are saying, because it won’t matter which organs someone was born with, only the organs they have right now.
And if I’m wrong, I’m pretty confident that my interpretation could be successfully argued in the courts.
Have you seen anything to support this interpretation from the court? "Biological" in this context is almost always used as a euphemism for chromosome and/or genitalia at birth, i,e. cis women. I've never seen it used to cover trans women who've had bottom surgery.
Not as such, but it feels logical to me. If the issue is being driven by women not wanting there to be any penises in women-only spaces then in practice someone who doesn’t have a penis will go unchallenged.
I’ll also freely admit that this matches my views on the whole transgender issue, namely that biology (or more accurately morphology) is what really matters, but that it is something that can be changed surgically should a given individual want to change their sex.
In their definition of terms (especially paragraphs 6 and 7): "a person who is a biological
woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex", "We also use the expression “biological sex” ... to describe the sex of a person at birth".
Is that the general view in the trans community?
The bigots absolutely don't care - except when it suits them - whether people have had bottom surgery or not - they attack all trans people.
Meanwhile the vast majority of gender policing and harassment is done on how people look - so cis women get attacked and harassed too if deemed insufficiently gender conforming.
Also I'm a woman and this nonsense is absolutely not in my name and as far as I can see makes me and other women much less safe.
Biology contradicts this crude binary, as has been posted and linked before several times. It's not biologists coming out with this it's people who misunderstand or deliberately fail to understand that sex is a spectrum with multiple factors at work
Also the issue is not being driven by women, polling shows that the most transphobic group are older men. Women, especially lesbian women are far more trans accepting than older men. A common tactic of hate groups awash with conservative money is to try to pretend they are rights movements and therefore they hide behind bigot activists from minorities or who aren't white and male and prefer to fund these basically unrepresentative Astroturfed groups discretely.
There are of course rich female bigots involved too. There have always been female fascists and bigots but rich powerful people who zealously dedicate themselves to hate politics against harmless minorities are hate mongers and bullies. It's bully driven.
Not in my experience (struggling to find links - mostly going by what trans folk on bsky say about it). Not everyone can access surgery, bottom surgery in particular is complex and has risks of complications. It seems to be a very personal question whether the changes wrought by hormone therapy are sufficient or whether surgery is required to relieve any dysphoria a person might have.
It is much more common for trans women to want surgery but many of my trans friends and correspondents would emphasize that every trans person is on a path, and you don't tell other people how to transition or how to be transitioned or when they should be done transitioning.
If you want to be a safe person or even a person who people are willing to trust with their own trans-ness, try not to define gender based on biological characteristics or physical ones. When I was born, they thought I was female, but when I was born, I was also 8.5 pounds (under 4kg.) I'm NB not female and I'm significantly larger than 8.5lb/4kg. My friends genetics said her breast should give her cancer and kill her the way it had her mother, aunt, and grandmother. She had it removed and is not dead. We are not bound by our past selves or our genetics.
Hosting
@theorganist, Please don’t speak on behalf of other groups or assume that one person within a community speaks on behalf of them all. Thank you.
Tubbs, Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
(ETA formatting, DT)
I'll be interested to hear your thoughts afterwards...
True. It's common enough to have private cubicles within single-sex changing rooms, so people who prefer not to expose their nakedness to other users of the changing room can change in there, but the majority of facilities I've been in in the UK in the past decade or so have also had a communal open area with a couple of benches in which people routinely change.
In such a facility, going in a private cubicle prevents other people from seeing you naked; it does not prevent you from seeing other people naked.
Whereabouts? In Northants and Oxon we get around the leisure centres etc and I can’t think of a single (really not one) place where you would see other people naked in a changing room. I mean, obviously you’re describing what your experience is, but that’s just not how things are in the East Midlands.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/marie-le-conte-dilettante-watching-my-trans-friend-blossom/
You see people start to blossom and become happier and healthier as they transition and come out. My experience of watching people close to me come out is similar to hers.
(Bold mine)
This I completely agree with - it"s a waste and I'd go further, it's the grotesque bullying of harmless ordinary people.
No it isn't. I have my daughter to thank for my understanding.
And Louise, thank you for that post. My daughter truly emerged and is more comfortable in herself now.
Apologies too for quoting friends. Point taken.
And these forums represent the views of all trans people?
I suspect that trans voices struggle to get heard in the mainstream media, and, in the current climate, where things like the killing of Brianna Ghey happen, it will feel positively unsafe to speak out.
Coincidentally, the Supreme Court ruling came on the same day another judge in Manchester dismissed a complaint against the police for not taking action over the vile comments by Stuart Campbell (who doesn't seem to know how to say anything that isn't vile and hateful). When people can say such hateful things about a murdered young woman with impunity then it seems to me that we need stronger laws to protect people, not a watering down of the laws we already have.
I'd be interested to know what medical text you gleaned the use of that term in reference to humans. Was it published in, say, the last century or so?
It would be inaccurate even if it were not offensive; the word describes organisms where individuals produce both male and female gametes which is very seldom true of intersex people.
This road to dystopia is strewn with the bodies of those who don't conform.
My point is to hear from people where they themselves control the words and editorial rather than from places where folk can and do get cherry picked and selected to fit cis people's editorial agendas (or even very transphobic cis people's editorial agendas). It seems fairly reasonable media advice to me for people who want to get an idea if a given view or one they've heard is common or an outlier.
In the middle of a ferocious media assault on trans people which has run to tens of thousands of attack articles and pieces over more than ten years now, it's necessary to be ultra cautious about taking stuff from media outlets who are part of it - The BBC and The Guardian spring to mind. It's really not just the 'usual suspects'.
I would be more frightened if I was trans or non- binary but watching the capture and corruption of what I thought were respectable and high quality media sources has been horrifying for me. I have been in a position to 'see how the sausage is made' media-wise and it makes me realise how easily people can be demonised if there is a flow of money and even a small prejudiced group with the right social capital and privilege to unlock disproportionate media coverage from their mates and allies with the gatekeeping power.
No one is safe from our toxic media and while there are still some 'curate's egg' situations, they're almost 100% rotten on trans+ people. I can't recommend any of them - the willingness to platform the dishonest demonisation of a minority has been staggering. It should frighten us all.
Well, there is this published in 2000, or this from 2023 (sorry, behind a paywall but there is a brief abstract free); or an article from 1995 if that's not too old for you, or 2008 if you're looking for something post-millennium.
Did you read those links closely? The first is a historical book - studying the changing uses of the term, from the asbtract:
"Alice Dreger, Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Michigan State University and adjunct faculty at the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, brings us this study of how and why medical and scientific men have construed sex, gender, and sexuality as they have. A 36 page long epilogue contains narratives of intersexuals treated according to the still-standard medical protocols developed in the 1950s and calls for change: "Surely, ...it will be familiarity rather than knowlege that finally takes away [intersexuals'] supposed 'strangeness.'""
The second doesn't mention it. The last is referring to the phenomena @KarlLB is talking about (which isn't going to be a blanket term corresponding to all intersex and/or trans people). The third mentions it - but the reference it draws in is here:
https://www.healthyplace.com/gender/inside-intersexuality/intersexuality-frequently-asked-questions
It references it two senses; firstly to reference the historical use of the term, and latterly to refer again to what @KarlLB referenced.
There are plenty of terms which were in historical common usage, which have later proved to be either inaccurate or offensive or (as in this case) both.
I note that a host has already ruled to that effect on this thread so it's not up for grabs.
Language evolves. It may not have been a slur then, but it considered a slur now. Please don’t use it.
And may I remind everyone that the Styx exists for all your Hosting query needs.
Tubbs
Epiphanies Host
I don't think I've ever been this close to despair about the state of society. Even while the economic system was steadily screwing everyone there was at least the consolation of social progress, of a greater degree of personal respect and kindness about difference than even when I was growing up. Now that's gone, and with it the expectation that reactionaries at least code their hatred. I'm very worried about what this ruling and the reaction to it.
I think this points to something to be borne in mind - there's the strict legal meaning of the decision which @pease and @Alan Cresswell were talking about up thread but there's also going to be what we could call a 'Cass effect' - people taking a transphobic document or decision way beyond what it actually says and using it as permission or cover to go much further. I think this is already having significant impacts that go beyond what it says.
In other better news, there have been a lot of protests against it all round the country. In Edinburgh today there was a large march to support Trans people - covered here in The National
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25102617.thousands-trans-rights-protesters-rally-edinburgh/?
(By the way, they're one of those 'Curate's eggs' I was talking about - they actually have a good non- binary columnist Steph Paton but will also platform rabidly anti-trans types from Alba - this report looks OK though)
Yeah, you're both likely right.
It seems like such a massive flip from the outcomes in the Scottish courts and such an odd read of the legislation.
As an aside; Lord Sumption formerly of the UKSC was interviewed on PM on Friday; he indicated that the conclusions being drawn from the ruling are too broad, and that there is nothing in the ruling that prevents an organisation from offering trans inclusive services.
The entire public sector being required to adhere to sex assigned at birth is quite broad enough, whether that is down to the ruling itself of the bigots in the EHRC exploiting it.