Picture courtesy of PA media via BBC

 

Campaigners from For Women Scotland have taken decisive action against the Scottish government, challenging its policies on transgender pupils in schools and transgender individuals in prisons. They argue these policies blatantly violate a Supreme Court ruling that defined "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 as referring to biological women and biological sex.

 

The controversy centres on guidance allowing transgender pupils to choose facilities they feel most comfortable with and guidelines admitting transgender women to women's prisons under certain criteria.

 

For Women Scotland insists these policies contradict the Supreme Court’s April decision. The group has filed for reduction of these rules, urging that they are "unlawful" and detrimental to the safety of vulnerable women and girls.

 

The Scottish government has refrained from commenting on ongoing legal proceedings. Nevertheless, a spokesperson highlighted that the government faces a 21-day response window. The case’s outcome could significantly impact the implementation of gender-specific rules across public institutions.

 

The issue arises from For Women Scotland’s previous legal victory concerning the interpretation of "woman" under UK equalities law. The group successfully argued that the term should only apply to individuals who were born female, which led to a Supreme Court ruling in their favour. This decision mandates public bodies to reassess and align their gender policies accordingly.

 

While the ruling maintains protections for transgender individuals under the characteristic of gender reassignment, its emphasis on biological definitions sparked widespread policy reviews, reported the BBC.

 

The Scottish Parliament, for example, has adjusted its facilities to include male- and female-only toilets alongside gender-neutral options.

 

As the case progresses, it highlights the tension between gender identity policies and biological sex-based legal definitions. This legal battle underscores the ongoing debate over how to balance inclusivity with compliance with existing legal frameworks while ensuring fairness and safety for all concerned parties.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-08-18

 

In case you forgot, that's what Scots women look like!

This will continue to be a complex topic for many years to come. The plain fact is that not all people are either male or female. Because of hormonal issues, there are a lot of people who are somewhere in between. Even if you define gender based on chromosomes as XX = female and XY = male, there are still some people who are born with XXY chromosomes. 

Trying to limit the genders to just two just won't work.
 

25 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

This will continue to be a complex topic for many years to come. The plain fact is that not all people are either male or female. Because of hormonal issues, there are a lot of people who are somewhere in between. Even if you define gender based on chromosomes as XX = female and XY = male, there are still some people who are born with XXY chromosomes. 

Trying to limit the genders to just two just won't work.
 

One in a million is not that many.

And you want us all to live our lives pandering to that group?

 

Didn't you write a book about it?

25 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

This will continue to be a complex topic for many years to come. The plain fact is that not all people are either male or female. Because of hormonal issues, there are a lot of people who are somewhere in between. Even if you define gender based on chromosomes as XX = female and XY = male, there are still some people who are born with XXY chromosomes. 

Trying to limit the genders to just two just won't work.
 

 

The issue is biological sex, not gender.

 

There is only 2 biological sexes, male and female. Plus  0.00005% of the population who are born true Hermaphrodities.

 

The skill of a surgeons knife does not turn a biological man into a biological female or vice versa.

 

And here is the mentalism 

 

Quote

The UK’s first transgender judge has launched a case against the UK in the European court of human rights challenging the process that led to the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.

The retired judge Victoria McCloud, who is now a litigation strategist at W-Legal, is seeking a rehearing of the case, arguing that the supreme court undermined her article 6 rights to a fair trial when it refused to hear representation from her and did not hear evidence from any other trans individuals or groups.

 

You would think a retired Judge  would know and understand, that she wasn't on trial, no-one was on trial.

 

The Supreme Court was asked to make a ruling on the meaning of sex under the Equality Act 2010.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Trying to limit the genders to just two just won't work.
 

One in a million is not that many.

And you want us all to live our lives pandering to that group?

 

Didn't you write a book about it?

It's much, much more than "one in a million." It says online that XXY chromosomes are about 1 in 1.000. And although I couldn't find a figure online, I'm sure the percentage of hormone-related transsexuals is a lot more prevalent than XXY chromosomes. 

Being a far-left, "woke" liberal, I want us to live our lives practicing DEI - Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - for everyone.

I've written 10 books, but none of them have had a transsexual in them. One of my books has a brief homosexual relationship in it, and one has two characters with a more permanent homosexual relationship. 

51 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The issue is biological sex, not gender.

 

There is only 2 biological sexes, male and female. Plus  0.00005% of the population who are born true Hermaphrodities.

 

The skill of a surgeons knife does not turn a biological man into a biological female or vice versa.

 

And here is the mentalism 

 

 

You would think a retired Judge  would know and understand, that she wasn't on trial, no-one was on trial.

 

The Supreme Court was asked to make a ruling on the meaning of sex under the Equality Act 2010.

The issue is gender and not sex, biological sex, because there are not just two biological sexes. That's just what most of us have been taught and want to believe. There are not even two genders. There's a spectrum of genders, with male being one extreme an female being the other. 99.9% of us are somewhere in between. (I admit that most of use are very close to the extremes and it's a very steep curve sweeping down and up to the other, but most of use are somewhere on that curve.)

I am all for the Supreme Court taking up this issue, but whatever their ruling is won't change the fact that there are hormone-based transsexuals who need to be considered when applying DEI - Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion.

15 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The issue is gender and not sex, biological sex,

 

The issue in the OP was clarity on the word " Sex " as applied to the Equility Act 2010.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that it applied to biological sex. Male or Female at birth. And that single sex spaces pertain to biological sex.

 

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

because there are not just two biological sexes.

 

Enlighten us all, how many biological sexes are there, and what are they called .

 

20 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

There are not even two genders.

 

Apparently there are hundreds of Genders. It does not change the fact that there are only 2 biological sexes, unless you are 1 of the 0.00005% of the population who is born a Hermaphrodite.

It makes me laugh seeing people tying themselves in mental knots over this. It's very is very simple.

 

There are only 2 biological sexes for organisms that reproduce sexually - male and female. The females produce large gametes (eggs). Of course there are some females who cannot produce eggs but that is a loss of function due to genetic or developmental errors.

 

Gender is the polite work for the noun '(biological) sex'. It came into use because the verb 'sex' became impolite for various cultural reasons across time.

 

Gender (or sex) expression is cultural. It is the way we present ourselves to the outside world through how we look, act, and speak.

 

Gender (or sex) role is cultural. It is similar to gender (or sex) expression but has more do with how we behave such as what type of job we do or whether we are expected to be the provider, carer, protector etc.

 

Then there is personality. Everyone has a mix of personality traits such as defined by the 'Big 5' for example. Some personality traits are highly correlated with biological males so we call them 'masculine'. Some personality traits are highly correlated with biological females so we call them 'feminine'.

 

The words 'masculine' and 'feminine' are words borrowed from gendered language which is not relevant here.

 

Now we ask the question:

 

Why do we have separate spaces for men and women, such as toilets and changing rooms, and separate categories for men an women in sport?'

 

Again...the answer is simple 🤔

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The issue in the OP was clarity on the word " Sex " as applied to the Equility Act 2010.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that it applied to biological sex. Male or Female at birth. And that single sex spaces pertain to biological sex.

 

 

Enlighten us all, how many biological sexes are there, and what are they called .

 

 

Apparently there are hundreds of Genders. It does not change the fact that there are only 2 biological sexes, unless you are 1 of the 0.00005% of the population who is born a Hermaphrodite.

Of course, "biological sex" all depends on how you define "sex." IMO, there are four methods:
1. External physical attributes: This basically means having a penis and testes (male) or a vagina (female). This is the most common way "sex" is determined at birth.
2. Internal physical attributes: This basically means having ovaries and a womb (female) or not (male).
3. Chromosomes: This is usually either XX (female) or XY (male), or there is a small percentage that have XXY (usually classified as male).
4. Hormones: These are primarily estrogen (female) and androgen (male), and are the most difficult to determine gender, since everyone had both, and it is the percentage of the mix that gives the predominance of either male or female characteristics.

So, take your pick... 

20 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Of course, "biological sex" all depends on how you define "sex." IMO, there are four methods:
1. External physical attributes: This basically means having a penis and testes (male) or a vagina (female). This is the most common way "sex" is determined at birth.
2. Internal physical attributes: This basically means having ovaries and a womb (female) or not (male).
3. Chromosomes: This is usually either XX (female) or XY (male), or there is a small percentage that have XXY (usually classified as male).
4. Hormones: These are primarily estrogen (female) and androgen (male), and are the most difficult to determine gender, since everyone had both, and it is the percentage of the mix that gives the predominance of either male or female characteristics.

So, take your pick... 

 

Have you caught the common theme throughout your word salad yet ?
 

It appears to be Male and Female . Common across all 4 of your bullet points.

22 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Have you caught the common theme throughout your word salad yet ?
 

It appears to be Male and Female . Common across all 4 of your bullet points.

What I have done in my "word salad" is use the same terms as those who only want to classify people as "male" or "female." I've used them in the same way I'd use "tall" or "short." As I have said, all people are somewhere in between, although I'll admit that the vast majority of people are very close to one or the other classification. 

My point is, not everyone can be classified as male or female. There are some, admittedly a few, that are somewhere in between, and what we must do is make sure this Diversity is recognized, those in that category are treated Equally, and everyone is Included.

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

My point is, not everyone can be classified as male or female. There are some, admittedly a few, that are somewhere in between,

 

But they are, it's called Biological sex

 

Male 
 

Female

 

And about 0.00005 of the population are born True Hermaphrodities.

 

There are no other biological sexes.

 

Little Billy, who plays with dolls at 3 years old, is not a transgender.

 

Just like little Katie, who likes to play football at 4 years old, is not a transgender.

 

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

What I have done in my "word salad" is use the same terms as those who only want to classify people as "male" or "female.

 

You used the terms, because the human species only has 2 biological sexes, male and Female.

 

As you highlighted brilliantly, in your 4 bullet points.

27 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

But they are, it's called Biological sex

 

Male 
 

Female

 

And about 0.00005 of the population are born True Hermaphrodities.

 

There are no other biological sexes.

 

Little Billy, who plays with dolls at 3 years old, is not a transgender.

 

Just like little Katie, who likes to play football at 4 years old, is not a transgender.

 

 

You used the terms, because the human species only has 2 biological sexes, male and Female.

 

As you highlighted brilliantly, in your 4 bullet points.

Below is a chart showing the number of "Non-Binary" (neither male nor female) in some countries. I only post this to show you that non-binary people are recognized. 
 

Also, the difference between "biological sex" and "gender" is cited online as:

- Sex refers to biological differences such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. 

- Gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expectations associated with being male or female. 
...but I think you already know this. 

34 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Below is a chart showing the number of "Non-Binary" (neither male nor female) in some countries. I only post this to show you that non-binary people are recognized. 
 

 

A Tinder chart

 

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Below is a chart showing the number of "Non-Binary" (neither male nor female) in some countries. I only post this to show you that non-binary people are recognized. 
 

Also, the difference between "biological sex" and "gender" is cited online as:

- Sex refers to biological differences such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. 

- Gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expectations associated with being male or female. 
...but I think you already know this. 

I always use tawdry hookup websites for my scientific analysis too!

 

Looks like we might be on to something here!

Yup….numbers check out.

 

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

 

 

 

On 8/18/2025 at 2:42 PM, WDSmart said:

Trying to limit the genders to just two just won't work.
 

 

There have only been two forever, pretending there are more just wont work

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Below is a chart showing the number of "Non-Binary" (neither male nor female) in some countries. I only post this to show you that non-binary people are recognized. 
 

Also, the difference between "biological sex" and "gender" is cited online as:

- Sex refers to biological differences such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. 

- Gender refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expectations associated with being male or female. 
...but I think you already know this. 

 

Absolute nonsense, you are male or female, non binary is just another fantasy

Transgender pupils?

 

You what now?

14 hours ago, proton said:

 

Absolute nonsense, you are male or female, non binary is just another fantasy

Being exclusively male or female is the fantasy. Everyone is somewhere in between. 

14 hours ago, proton said:

 

There have only been two forever, pretending there are more just wont work

There has forever been a mix of male/female characteristics in all species of animals displaying sexual differences. Gender is even more mixed. 

15 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

There has forever been a mix of male/female characteristics in all species of animals displaying sexual differences. Gender is even more mixed. 

Rubbish , and pandering to these idiots who claim to be "non binary" or whatever the current made up word is for this insanity, is equally ridiculous. It is no different than supplying litter trays to those who identify as cats 

 The whole issue is a joke and at the expense of right minded people who are being bullied into silence

Can you explain why "gender reaffirming" surgery is only able to reaffirm one of just two genders?   Hmmm thats a difficult one isn't it ?

Maybe I am old fashioned. I have many gay and lesbian friends, and most I know are really wonderful people. And I have met a number of ladyboys over the years, casually. Cannot really relate to that culture, but to each his own. It is a huge and highly accepted culture here. All good. 

 

It is the other ones I am having an increasingly hard time comprehending. And not only all of the myriad of designations, but the whole PC culture surrounding the designation, the insistence on us using the right terminology, and all the rest that goes along with the uber PC acceptance stuff. 

 

When I grew up if you liked guys you were either gay or bisexual. Now?

 

The US is by far the most tolerant country in the world when it comes to the whole trans, non-binary, amorosexual, decide whatever you want today, if it fits mentality. No other country is as loose, driftless, and as silly as the US, except maybe the UK. Maybe. 

 

When a woman devotes her entire youth to a sport, and becomes one of the best in that particular area, and then a man comes along who decides to identify as a woman, and steals all the awards, all the victories, and all the accolades, something is not right in society. Something is broken, society has become morally bankrupt, and there has to be a pause, there has to be an interruption of the nonsense.

 

No woman would survive more than 30 minutes in the NFL. Women will not participate in men's sports because they won't be able to handle the physical endurance required, nor the brutality, nor the talent level. A woman ranked #5 on the WTA could not beat a #758 man on the ATP as John McEnroe so truthfully stated.

 

Hopefully all this craziness will pass and we'll return to some form of normalcy and indecency. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Rubbish , and pandering to these idiots who claim to be "non binary" or whatever the current made up word is for this insanity, is equally ridiculous. It is no different than supplying litter trays to those who identify as cats 

 The whole issue is a joke and at the expense of right minded people who are being bullied into silence

Can you explain why "gender reaffirming" surgery is only able to reaffirm one of just two genders?   Hmmm thats a difficult one isn't it ?

I don't consider transgender people as "rubbish." I accept them for who they are, and that is who they think they are. 

I think those, like you, who are so vehemently opposed to transgender people that you deny them the right to exist, are the biggest problem here.

"Gender" is not the same as "biological sex. " Gender is how someone is characterized socially. Gender-affirming surgery exists to adjust any of the biological sex attributes to be in line with the person's preferred gender. As far as I know, it is practiced both ways (biological male -> female gender and biological female -> male gender).

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't consider transgender people as "rubbish." I accept them for who they are, and that is who they think they are. 

I think those, like you, who are so vehemently opposed to transgender people that you deny them the right to exist, are the biggest problem here.

"Gender" is not the same as "biological sex. " Gender is how someone is characterized socially. Gender-affirming surgery exists to adjust any of the biological sex attributes to be in line with the person's preferred gender. As far as I know, it is practiced both ways (biological male -> female gender and biological female -> male gender).

I don't give a flying one about sexual deviants, what they do, or who they do it with, but I don't want to be forced to live my life differently because of them. And my women don't want them hanging around in their toilets or changing rooms or winning their prizes in women's sports.

51 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Being exclusively male or female is the fantasy. Everyone is somewhere in between. 

 

People may have more male or female characteristics. 

 

But they are either biologically male or biologically female. 

 

Just because a bloke likes wearing a dress and lipstick doesn't make him a woman. It makes him a bloke in a dress. 

 

Time for you lefty "Progressives" to wake up to that fact.  

16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't consider transgender people as "rubbish." I accept them for who they are, and that is who they think they are. 

I think those, like you, who are so vehemently opposed to transgender people that you deny them the right to exist, are the biggest problem here.

"Gender" is not the same as "biological sex. " Gender is how someone is characterized socially. Gender-affirming surgery exists to adjust any of the biological sex attributes to be in line with the person's preferred gender. As far as I know, it is practiced both ways (biological male -> female gender and biological female -> male gender).

typical reply from a lefty,  so just to clarify...

I did not describe anybody as rubbish   I was describing your post  but you knew that

I am not opposed to, or  denying, anybody the right to exist  you knew that too

 

And now best of all you admit that gender affirming surgery does indeed only offer two options... in your own words  "(biological male -> female gender and biological female -> male gender)."  I'm sure in these "enlightened" times if there were other "options" they would be on the menu.   But they are not, because they do not exist except in some peoples imagination.

 

Dr to patient     "how can i help you ?"

patient to dr      "Id like surgery to affirm my gender"

dr to patient      "Which is ?"

patient to dr      "Non binary yet questioning"

dr to patient     " i'll book you in for a lobotomy then "  

38 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Hopefully all this craziness will pass and we'll return to some form of normalcy and indecency

Don't hold your breath,    it will only get worse

40 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't give a flying one about sexual deviants, what they do, or who they do it with, but I don't want to be forced to live my life differently because of them. And my women don't want them hanging around in their toilets or changing rooms or winning their prizes in women's sports.

I think I've heard the same thing about Black people, and it was from the same types who are against transgender people.

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

People may have more male or female characteristics. 

 

But they are either biologically male or biologically female. 

 

Just because a bloke likes wearing a dress and lipstick doesn't make him a woman. It makes him a bloke in a dress. 

 

Time for you lefty "Progressives" to wake up to that fact.  

I disagree in your "either/or" opinion.

If a "bloke" (someone mainly biologically male) wears a dress and lipstick (identifies with the female gender), that does make him a "bloke in a dress." Another term for that is a "transgender person."

We lefties are progressives and we, at least I, have been "woke" for many, many years.