UK U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Do Not Meet Legal Definition of Women Under Equality Act - The UK Supreme Court says YWNBAW! (although the trans identity is still a protected characteristic)

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Featured on Apr 17, 2025 by Null: U.K. Supreme Court declares: You will NEVER be a Woman.
Article | Archive
The New York Times. Published: 16 April 2025

U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Do Not Meet Legal Definition of Women Under Equality Act​

Britain’s Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether trans women can be defined as female under a British law that aims to protect against discrimination.

The Supreme Court in Britain ruled on Wednesday that trans women do not fall within the legal definition of women under the country’s equality legislation.

The deputy president of the court, Lord Hodge, said in a summary of the decision: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex.”

However, he added: “We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.” He said the ruling “does not cause disadvantage to trans people” because they have protections under anti-discrimination and equality laws.

The landmark judgment follows a yearslong legal battle over whether trans women can be regarded as female under the 2010 law, which aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, race and other protected characteristics.

The decision was highly anticipated because it could have potentially far-reaching consequences for how the law is applied to single sex spaces, equal pay claims and maternity policies as well as to some of the rights available to transgender people in Britain.

BBC live reporting; https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
0.webp
1.webp 2.webp 3.webp 4.webp

Also, sex is binary:
5.webp 6.webp

👀
single-sex-spaces.webp

Related:
JK Rowling, the Queen of TERF Island who helped fund this lawsuit, is celebrating.
Queen-of-TERF-Island.webp GosUamSXUAAWcMW.webp
And the troons are melting down even more than usual over her. See:
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21120381
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21129887
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21135630
a.webp b.webp c.webp d.webp e.webp
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Ripstart Reginald, Enzo, Yellow Rose Of Texas and 601 others
Click to expand...
Well this is probably better than the court ruling trans-identifying men are women. But the court also went out of its way to make clear that trans is still a protected category in UK law. Why should it not be? Because it's not an intrinsic thing but a behaviour. There's no basis for the "woman's brain in a man's body" conception. There's no inherent attribute to be discriminated against. Being trans is a choice. Protected characteristics in UK law are supposed to be just that - actual characteristics. If you're a particular skin colour, disability, whatever, that's not something you choose to do and therefore in UK law something you are protected from being judged on. But this ruling is based on the idea that trans behaviour is similarly something you don't choose. That's wrong.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, Chunky Salsa and 59 others
:semperfidelis:

Despite this ruling being excellent news, it cost our taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of our Great British Squid to decide this.

Judge will need to hire some personal bodyguards at all times because he has incurred the full wrath of every 6'3'' AGP fetishist and Discord ageplay groomer in the country. The bottom of his garden wall will be scaled by thousands like that scene from World War Z. Just instead of zombies it's men in women's clothing.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, Umbra and 67 others
CaptainAutism69 said:
Is the UK still arguing over the definition of a woman?
Click to expand...
No. We know what a woman is. Some people were trying to redefine its definition in law, in order to gain special privileges. The court has ruled that their attempts at redefining the law are stupid.

Overly Serious said:
Well this is probably better than the court ruling trans-identifying men are women. But the court also went out of its way to make clear that trans is still a protected category in UK law. Why should it not be? Because it's not an intrinsic thing but a behaviour. There's no basis for the "woman's brain in a man's body" conception. There's no inherent attribute to be discriminated against. Being trans is a choice. Protected characteristics in UK law are supposed to be just that - actual characteristics. If you're a particular skin colour, disability, whatever, that's not something you choose to do and therefore in UK law something you are protected from being judged on. But this ruling is based on the idea that trans behaviour is similarly something you don't choose. That's wrong.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, troonery is protected by the Gender Recognition Act, which the court can't simply overturn. Getting that repealed by Parliament seems to be the next goal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, Elim Garak and 49 others
Overly Serious said:
Well this is probably better than the court ruling trans-identifying men are women. But the court also went out of its way to make clear that trans is still a protected category in UK law. Why should it not be? Because it's not an intrinsic thing but a behaviour. There's no basis for the "woman's brain in a man's body" conception. There's no inherent attribute to be discriminated against. Being trans is a choice. Protected characteristics in UK law are supposed to be just that - actual characteristics. If you're a particular skin colour, disability, whatever, that's not something you choose to do and therefore in UK law something you are protected from being judged on. But this ruling is based on the idea that trans behaviour is similarly something you don't choose. That's wrong.
Click to expand...
Hey, just enjoy the win for now mate. I'm confident that will also come in time. Because, as you point out, it's a logical consequence of this ruling.

But as for right now, it's time to dab on trannies while the sun shines. In some ways, this might be the best time, while they still have some institutional power and protections, but they're seething as they watch it all slip away. In a few more years, when your employer can (rightfully) just say "Take off the dress, Dave", it might just seem more sad than funny.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, A Parroting Puppet and 49 others
This is great, but just as I did after reading Trump's excellently worded EO on biological sex, I feel really fucking pissed off that it was ever even a serious issue. We, a species that created usable electricity and aeroplanes and spaceships, collectively fucking pretended that we didn't know what men and women are. It's so fucking stupid that this is where we are.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Ripstart Reginald, The Crescent King, ERROR 1404 and 102 others
Always wondered how the law deals with tranny rape (apart from pretend it doesn’t exist) given the very specific (and old) definition of rape the UK has which makes it so only a man can commit it.

That’s the sort of can of worms shit they probably don’t want to be dealing with by accepting more of this trans nonsense.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, Elim Garak and 16 others
Also, for all of you non-Brits that are reading this, I might put a thread in Prospering Grounds about the guy who brought and supported this case financially.

His name is Jolyon Maugham (he has a thread in Prospering Grounds), a man whose father had wealth back in the day. He's been suing everyone since he got a taste for it in the 90s and is pretty well known in this country as a vexatious litigant.

About a few years ago on Boxing Day, he goes outside in the morning wearing a silk red kimono. What does he do when he sees a wounded fox stuck in the chicken wiring he put up? He does the only thing any sane person would do:

He uses a cricket bat to beat the fox to death in his garden, and then posts about it on Twitter (the day after Christmas).

He runs the Good Law Project which has been scamming its leftist supporters for a while now, and was set up to annoy the Tories when they were in power and to use up as much of their resources as well as taxpayer money to virtue signal. GLP had been on a losing streak in the courts for about 3 years now, and he is quite the funny character.

skynews-jolyon-maugham-fox_4939177-602679896.webp

EDIT: Added link to Jolly's PG thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, PetiteFeet and 114 others
Crunkle said:
Also, for all of you non-Brits that are reading this, I might put a thread in Prospering Grounds about the guy who brought and supported this case financially.

His name is Jolyon Maugham, a man whose father had wealth back in the day. He's been suing everyone since he got a taste for it in the 90s and is pretty well known in this country as a vexatious litigant.

About a few years ago on Boxing Day, he goes outside in the morning wearing a silk red kimono. What does he do when he sees a wounded fox stuck in the chicken wiring he put up? He does the only thing any sane person would do:

He uses a cricket bat to beat the fox to death in his garden, and then posts about it on Twitter (the day after Christmas).

He runs the Good Law Project which has been scamming its leftist supporters for a while now, and was set up to annoy the Tories when they were in power and to use up as much of their resources as well as taxpayer money to virtue signal. GLP had been on a losing streak in the courts for about 3 years now, and he is quite the funny character.

View attachment 7227776
Click to expand...
Here's the tweet.
fox.webp
 
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: DominoPetachi, Elim Garak, line drying and 49 others
One of the key points: The Supreme Court can only rule on the law as it is; it doesn't make law. As such, this judgement not only clarifies things as they are now, but it also states what the law always has been.

There are loads of bodies will now need to unwind policies/processes that are predicated on an incorrect EA2010 understanding of the meaning of women.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, Sangria Nigger and 46 others
Slimy Time said:
Always wondered how the law deals with tranny rape (apart from pretend it doesn’t exist) given the very specific (and old) definition of rape the UK has which makes it so only a man can commit it.

That’s the sort of can of worms shit they probably don’t want to be dealing with by accepting more of this trans nonsense.
Click to expand...
British legal definition is that rape specifically involves penetration with a penis, not “by a man” so there can and have been examples of “women” committing rape with their girlypenis, whereas Aidans who use toys or fingers are charged with assault by penetration instead. As far as I’m aware there hasn’t been a trial involving a neophallus yet, but no doubt that horror will reach us soon enough.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, DominoPetachi, PetiteFeet and 31 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back