They should probably thank Hamas for this decision.

What the ruling means is in the case of woman only facilities, someone who is transgender cannot insist on access. The owners od said faciities can, if they wish, continue to allow access. Fully transitioned trans men will use woman's facilities. This includes communal changing and showering facilties. And the other way. Now men, with their young sons, will be sharing shower facilities with fully transitioned transwomen, who have boobs and faux vaginas. And those who haven't fully transitioned, and never will (ie breasts and a penis). Surgery has come on leaps and bounds in fashioning appendages and orifices.

 

Protections under the Equalities Act of 2010 are unaffected. Trans individuals remain protected from discrimination based on gender reassignment and can still bring claims for direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in reliance on principles such as associative and perceived discrimination. Indeed, the ruling cited an example:

 

Quote

Take, for example, a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no different to her claim, which would be treated in the same way as a direct discrimination claim made by a biological woman based on the sex of the complainant herself.

 

The Law says she is not a biological female, but is deserving of the same anti-discriminatory protections as a biological female.

 

 

One of the implications of the ruling is the end of single sex public conveniences, moving to a model of private cubicles. Or if someone built changing and showering facilties that consisted of private changing cubicles and showers, and then declared them to be female only, they would need to demonstrate that excluding trans people is a limited and proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. I think in that case, they couldn't demonstrate that.

 

This case would never have come about if not for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Act, which was declared illegal by the then Scottish Secretary and struck down. The Transphobes obviously got wood out of the judgement, but its not the judgement that lot suppose.

1 hour ago, MicroB said:

What the ruling means is in the case of woman only facilities, someone who is transgender cannot insist on access. The owners od said faciities can, if they wish, continue to allow access. Fully transitioned trans men will use woman's facilities. This includes communal changing and showering facilties. And the other way. Now men, with their young sons, will be sharing shower facilities with fully transitioned transwomen, who have boobs and faux vaginas. And those who haven't fully transitioned, and never will (ie breasts and a penis). Surgery has come on leaps and bounds in fashioning appendages and orifices.

 

Protections under the Equalities Act of 2010 are unaffected. Trans individuals remain protected from discrimination based on gender reassignment and can still bring claims for direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in reliance on principles such as associative and perceived discrimination. Indeed, the ruling cited an example:

 

 

The Law says she is not a biological female, but is deserving of the same anti-discriminatory protections as a biological female.

 

 

One of the implications of the ruling is the end of single sex public conveniences, moving to a model of private cubicles. Or if someone built changing and showering facilties that consisted of private changing cubicles and showers, and then declared them to be female only, they would need to demonstrate that excluding trans people is a limited and proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. I think in that case, they couldn't demonstrate that.

 

This case would never have come about if not for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Act, which was declared illegal by the then Scottish Secretary and struck down. The Transphobes obviously got wood out of the judgement, but its not the judgement that lot suppose.

It was a victory for common sense. All a bit awkward for you obviously. Just think, now a man who raped women cannot claim to be a woman himself!

 

It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.

 

"From the above Guardian article:

 

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case, said the decision was “clearly disappointing”.

 

I have always had great respect for Amnesty International, but calling a legal ruling about defining biology 'clearly disappointing' is astonishing!

 

The whole world, everything that is happening now, the fighting, the

other big recent event, the name calling of another country, is very worrying. 

 

We are becoming too fractured.

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Id love to see a drugs section. Watch some drugged up freaks like Ben Johnson.

Absolutely - the Athletic Enhancement Drug Open Category.  Wouldn't have much affect in cycling, football, body-building, or baseball though.  <laughs>  But you could get some real UFC monsters out there.  Whoo baby!
Even better.  And open category where gals can use any drugs they want, and men can't use any.  Then let the games begin!  "Are You Entertained?"

good move 

6 minutes ago, connda said:

Absolutely - the Athletic Enhancement Drug Open Category.  Wouldn't have much affect in cycling, football, body-building, or baseball though.  <laughs>  But you could get some real UFC monsters out there.  Whoo baby!
Even better.  And open category where gals can use any drugs they want, and men can't use any.  Then let the games begin!  "Are You Entertained?"

Yeah have many categories. Jazz it up. More freaks the better.

In other breaking news, the UK Supreme court rules that water is wet, the earth is round, and the sun is hot. 

 

I couldn't believe it. 

22 hours ago, Watawattana said:

But a massively important change that protects women from having to shower with men after a women's sports event, or women having to compete with men at those events.  

This ruling doesn't actually change things in this particular regard. The Equalities Act 2010 already allowed sports bodies to exclude trans people from sports competitions.

 

Here is the wording from the 2010 act. 

 

Quote

There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. For example, sports competition organisers are able to lawfully exclude trans people from participating in “gender-affected activity” where this is necessary to ensure fairness or the safety of other competitors.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

21 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

At what point do old people get their sarcasm meters removed?

Oh, I'm sorry Crying Dick, was that an attempt at sarcasm? You know what they say about sarcasm and wit, right?Sorry, my but my sarcasm meter must be confused by all of the unadulterated drival that it has to filter out. 

 

What is with the derogertory age comments, is that your best shot at a put down? I see them often appearing on this forum i.e. references to being old and past it. Hell, I was even accussed just the other day of using "out dated terms".

Be off with you, you gelded Cretin.

I think this ruling has been somewhat misreported and misinterpreted. The decision does not provide a definition of a woman. It simply holds that for the purposes of the Equalities Act 2010, any reference to "woman" in the Act is a reference to a biological woman. It doesn't apply anywhere else. It is based, not on any understanding of what a woman is or isn't, but simply on the way in which, on a matter of legal interpretation, the term is to be understood when used in the Act.

 

The court was at some pains to emphasise this in its ruling, stating as follows: 

 

Quote

“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”

 

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I think this ruling has been somewhat misreported and misinterpreted. The decision does not provide a definition of a woman. It simply holds that for the purposes of the Equalities Act, the reference to "woman" in the Act is a reference to a biological woman. It doesn't apply anywhere else. It is based, not on any understanding of what a woman is or isn't, but simply on the way in which, on a matter of legal interpretation, the term is to be understood when used in the Act.

 

The court was at some pains to emphasise this in its ruling, stating as follows: 

 

 

Who do you think uses the equality act in its policies? 

 

All companies are bound by it as are schools, gov buildings. Just about every service for the public. It's highly significant and the reprocussions are huge

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Who do you think uses the equality act in its policies? 

 

All companies are bound by it as are schools, gov buildings. Just about every service for the public. It's highly significant and the reprocussions are huge

Totally agree that the repercussions of this ruling are highly significant. However, what this ruling doesn't do, is provide a definition of what a woman is, in a wider sense - as the court specifically pointed out.

So I'm American, but I applaud the UK Supreme Court.

 

I'd categorize myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but this whole trans thing kinda crosses the line for me.

 

Fundamentally we all know there is a difference between a man and a woman in terms of physical ability, there is a reason why we have mens and women's sports!

 

Just because you 'define' whatever that actually means as a woman, doesn't change a mans testosterone and physical abilities.

 

Back to my bleeding liberal self, as much as I hate it I totally agree, on this one at least with the rabid right

22 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

So I'm American, but I applaud the UK Supreme Court.

 

I'd categorize myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but this whole trans thing kinda crosses the line for me.

 

Fundamentally we all know there is a difference between a man and a woman in terms of physical ability, there is a reason why we have mens and women's sports!

 

Just because you 'define' whatever that actually means as a woman, doesn't change a mans testosterone and physical abilities.

 

Back to my bleeding liberal self, as much as I hate it I totally agree, on this one at least with the rabid right

 

   Its not the "rabid right " though .

Normal regular people are fed up with the Lefties polices .

Gave them equality and they tried to take over .

They didn't want equality, they wanted  superiority

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Totally agree that the repercussions of this ruling are highly significant. However, what this ruling doesn't do, is provide a definition of what a woman is, in a wider sense - as the court specifically pointed out.

Because a woman and man's definition is defined at birth on the certificate by biological medical decisions.

On 4/16/2025 at 5:21 AM, Social Media said:

The ruling stems from a years-long legal battle brought by For Women Scotland, a campaign group that argues sex is biological, binary, and immutable.

 

Yes, a fact obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.

 

I can almost hear the tantrums and fits of the deranged radical Leftists already  - because facts do no matter to them.

4 hours ago, Sierra Tango said:

You know what they say about sarcasm and wit, right?

Unfortunately, you seem to only be focused on the first half of “what they say”

 

 

Ah well guess I’m a simple guy an innie is an innie and an outey is an outey  innies use the lady’s room and compete with the women.all stop 🛑 the outys use the men’s room and compete against other men.all stop 🛑 now if they want to run around in drag I could care less.its a tiny segment of the population and certainly isn’t a big deal unless you make it one.

10 hours ago, Airalee said:

Unfortunately, you seem to only be focused on the first half of “what they say”

 

 

Yes thanks for that Airalee. That is what I was alluding to, not what I seemed to be focusing on.

I don't think the anti-trans types have thought this through; they could now be changing with trans women. And they'll be at the urinal with them. Guess that's what they want. 🙂

 

I can't believe that we have the capability to send a spacecraft to the outer edges of the known universe but struggle to determine who should go in which toilet. 

 

What an absurd species we are. 

 

If a trans-woman, formerly a man, but has had all the hormone treatment, and possibly his genitalia altered, and is dressed and looks like a woman, goes into a Women's Public Toilet into a closed cubicle, how would any of the other users know. Especially if 'ít' comes out and does its hair and make-up.

15 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

I don't think the anti-trans types have thought this through; they could now be changing with trans women. And they'll be at the urinal with them. Guess that's what they want. 🙂

 

I can't believe that we have the capability to send a spacecraft to the outer edges of the known universe but struggle to determine who should go in which toilet. 

 

What an absurd species we are. 

 

Actually this case was brought by women, real women to protect their rights. Fantastic news they have won. Not heard of any guys complaining about trans women having to use male toilets have you? I don't care, after all they are men really.

59 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 Not heard of any guys complaining about trans women having to use male toilets have you? 

That's because they haven't had to. If there is a change in legislation and they are legally obliged to you'll see it all kick off.

 

Similarly if a trans person who was assigned female at birth, has fully transitioned and has received male hormone treatment, had phalloplasty (I.e. clitoris converted to a penis) and has a full beard are women going to be comfortable with them in their changing rooms and toilets? They could literally be swapping someone without a penis for someone with one because of biological confusion.

 

 

On 4/17/2025 at 3:09 AM, MicroB said:

This case would never have come about if not for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Act, which was declared illegal by the then Scottish Secretary and struck down. The Transphobes obviously got wood out of the judgement, but its not the judgement that lot suppose.

 

It probably wouldn't have come about if they hadn't decided to house a male rapist in women's prison as one day he decided he was a female.  Or that fella who took some salon owner who only provided services to women to court as she was uncomfortable with waxing his hairy balls.   No-one really had an issue with trans people before Stonewall realized that their business model would collapse after they achieved equality for gay folks and needed another money making scheme, which is of course pretending that they believed that trans women are women and should have access to actual women's spaces and sports.  

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

If a trans-woman, formerly a man, but has had all the hormone treatment, and possibly his genitalia altered, and is dressed and looks like a woman, goes into a Women's Public Toilet into a closed cubicle, how would any of the other users know. Especially if 'ít' comes out and does its hair and make-up.

 

That was the world 10+ years ago.  You can thank Stonewall for pushing it so far that men were competing against women in sports, rapists were being housed in women's prisons, people were losing their jobs for simply stating biological facts and refusing to call a man a woman, and kids being given life changing treatments for something they normally just grow out of.  The trans rights movement have done that kind of trans woman no favours whatsoever.   

That court judge, the kind of Endangered Species of the Reason, in the west today.

And it is the reflection of how badly the western  society is polluted with the madness spread by sick minority.

 

It is quite silly that they have to spend so much of their time and money to be able to say ordinary thing like  being  Woman means being a biological female.

.

Anyway, congratulation UK on their successful defense of their common sense.

 

 

On 4/16/2025 at 11:19 AM, rough diamond said:

What has this got to do with the USA?

This is a Supreme Court of The UK ruling against the Scottish Government!!

There have been U.S. of A. judges that have referenced laws of foreign countries when making legal decisions in criminal and/or civil cases in the U.S. of A.   

 

Hopefully, those judges will now consider the ruling made by the Supreme Court of the UK when making decisions regarding trans men being or not being real women. 

On 4/16/2025 at 11:42 AM, connda said:

I have no problem if all sports league implement an "Open" category for all who wish to participate.  But it will never take off.
Biological men who compete in women's sport do so because they can dominate women physically.  They can win.  They can't win against men, but they can win against women.  So why not, 'eh?  Women are easy pickings. Pound them into the sand and take their medals - and laugh.

 

I read about a man, I forget which sport he was competing in, placed in the 400's when competing against men, then turned trans and placed first when competing against women.