Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

[Ace888Ace]

As best as I can tell, the legal justification was that having "woman" not refer to biological sex in the Equality Act (which governs anti-discrimination stuff) would cause large parts of it to make absolutely no sense, the stuff referring to maternity and pregnancy for example.

There's still legal protection for transgenders from discrimination, but this is now solely on the basis of them being trans, rather than also being covered by provisions covering women.

The overall message that they seem to be trying to send is that this is just technical legalese that will make no meaningful difference to anyone, but I'm not sure I buy that. An official legal distinction has been made between trans women and natal women, a line in the proverbial sand. I don't think anything like this could have happened a few years ago.

 

[Armitage]

As best as I can tell, the legal justification was that having "woman" not refer to biological sex in the Equality Act (which governs anti-discrimination stuff) would cause large parts of it to make absolutely no sense, the stuff referring to maternity and pregnancy for example.

There's still legal protection for transgenders from discrimination, but this is now solely on the basis of them being trans, rather than also being covered by provisions covering women.

The overall message that they seem to be trying to send is that this is just technical legalese that will make no meaningful difference to anyone, but I'm not sure I buy that. An official legal distinction has been made between trans women and natal women, a line in the proverbial sand. I don't think anything like this could have happened a few years ago.

I don't really have time to read through the entire judgment and look at the actual legal implications but I think that the idea that this will not make any meaningful difference is a complete fallacy, especially since the judgment itself states:

In enacting these exemptions, the intention must have been to allow for the exclusion of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of the possession of a GRC, in order to maintain the provision of single or separate services for women and men as distinct groups in appropriate circumstances. These provisions are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas (that might be essential for religious reasons or
desirable for the protection of a woman’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes) or medical or counselling services provided only to women (or men) – for example cervical cancer screening for women or prostate cancer screening for men, or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence.

This very clearly allows for the banning of transsexuals from single-sex spaces, both MtF and FtM without this being cosnidered as discrimination

 

[Ace888Ace]

I don't really have time to read through the entire judgment and look at the actual legal implications but I don't think that the idea that this will not make any meaningful difference is a complete fallacy

No, I agree with you, this is my point. The messaging surrounding this from the judge on down is that this is just correcting a minor definitional issue, because I think even now that the pendulum can very firmly be said to be swinging the other way, they're still a bit worried about backlash, which to be fair probably isn't an unreasonable worry. But to your point I agree the very idea that this is unimportant is transparently false.

 

[Ghostse]

This very clearly allows for the banning of transsexuals from single-sex spaces, both MtF and FtM without this being cosnidered as discrimination

This is terrible news. If women aren't forced to share locker rooms and bathrooms with hulking trannies who stare at and rape them, they'll go right back to vote retarded pro-tranny policies.

 

[Hoi Polloi]

TERF Island Supreme Court continues its genocide with an unanimous decision that yes, "woman" refers to biological sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

We've never been so back.

This may have massive implications for the Darlington nurses and, assuming Scotland plays ball, Sandie Peggie.

 

[AGPinochet]

TRANS GENOCIDE WORLDWIDE 2025 CONTINUES

First Trump retakes office and later says YWNBAW
Now Britshits join in

What Country will the Genocide spread to next?

Heil Rowling
Heil Elon
Total Tranny Death

 

[DSHK]

TRANS GENOCIDE WORLDWIDE 2025 CONTINUES

First Trump retakes office and later says YWNBAW
Now Britshits join in

What Country will the Genocide spread to next?

Heil Rowling
Heil Elon
Total Tranny Death

If only these pervs were being rounded up and put in camps

 

[Other Worlds]

Fucking finally. If there had been anything other than a unanimous ruling that men WNBAW mumsnet would get tilted enough to form their own political party to legislate against it.

 

[MugolEx]

TERF Island Supreme Court continues its genocide with an unanimous decision that yes, "woman" refers to biological sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

This shouldn't even have been up to debate in the first place. This isn't even a major victory. They will still arrest and fine you for misgendering someone on social media and every organization will just declare gender is separate from sex and make that the new weapon of the day to berate people with.

"You called a man a man even though they identify as a woman? Sex has nothing to do with GENDER chud!"

I know Im being a soy negative nigger and not a chad positive Polly, but you know they will get around this. The UK loves arresting people for asinine reasons.

 

[Tenebrous Calamity]

Scottish Trans said:

We’d urge people not to panic – there will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives. We’ll say more as soon as we’re able to. Please look out for yourselves and each other today.

Bluesky Post

So were trans people overstating when they said that recognising biological sex over psychological gender would be literal death to trannies? Did someone tell this next guy who is already 'literally shaking' over this?


Supreme Court ruling 'undermines vital human rights', says activist

Scottish Greens activist and National columnist Ellie Gomersall, a 25-year-old trans woman who lives in Glasgow, said she was "gutted" after the Supreme Court ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders.

These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.

Spoiler: Heckin Valid Girly

Yeah and trannies only have themselves to blame when forcing their way into spaces that didn't want them ended up in them getting BTFO'd because they pushed it too far. Suck shit loser.

 

[Vect]

I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders.

These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.

"We're not special anymore! I chopped my dick off and took titty pills for nothing, you misogynist sluts!"

I still love what little remains of the UK, and I genuinely wish they had the same clarity on virtually everything else.

 

[Troon Meet Noose]

TERF Island Supreme Court continues its genocide with an unanimous decision that yes, "woman" refers to biological sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

BlueSky is a goldmine right now.

"Waking up to devastating news for British trans people facing a truly awful ruling from their Supreme Court. This follows a manufactured campaign of lies, panic, and ignorance "

Yeah, from trannies.

"The concept of "sex-based rights" is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. You do not gain rights based on which sex you belong too. If you believe in equality, no sex is entitled to more rights than any other. "

Wut? But trans rights are human rights, right?

 

[AssignedEva]

This shouldn't even have been up to debate in the first place. This isn't even a major victory. They will still arrest and fine you for misgendering someone on social media and every organization will just declare gender is separate from sex and make that the new weapon of the day to berate people with.

"You called a man a man even though they identify as a woman? Sex has nothing to do with GENDER chud!"

I know Im being a soy negative nigger and not a chad positive Polly, but you know they will get around this. The UK loves arresting people for asinine reasons.

There's one bit I'd draw attention to:

203. The consequence of an interpretation of sex in the EA 2010 as extending to certificated sex pursuant to section 9(1) and (2) of the GRA 2004 would also create an odd inequality of status between those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but do or do not hold a GRC, with the smaller group (holders of a GRC) given additional rights, and no obvious means of distinguishing between the two groups. We can see no good reason why the legislature should have intended that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be regarded and treated differently under the EA 2010 depending on whether or not they possess a (confidential) certificate,even though in many (if not most) cases there will be no material distinction in their personal characteristics, either as regards gender identity, or appearance, or as to how they are perceived or treated by others or society at large. The difficulty this interpretation would create for service-providers, employers and other organisations in applying equality law to these groups is obvious. Research referred to by Sex Matters shows that,since it is in practice impossible for organisations to distinguish between people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who do and do not have a GRC, many organisations feel pressured into accepting de facto self-identification for the purposes of identifying whom to treat as a woman or girl when seeking to apply the group-based rights and protections of the EA 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic of sex. The result in some cases is that certain women-only groups, organisations, and charities have come under pressure (including from funders and commissioners) to include trans women and policy decisions have been taken simply to accept members or users of the opposite biological sex, either assuming that they hold a confidential GRC or on the basis of self-identification.

204. The second core provision is section 12 of the EA 2010 which defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation and is framed by reference to orientation towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex, or either sex. Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

205. Section 12 provides as follows:
“12 Sexual orientation
(1) Sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards—
(a) persons of the same sex,
(b) persons of the opposite sex, or
(c) persons of either sex.
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.”

206. Accordingly, a person with same sex orientation as a lesbian must be a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females, and lesbians as a group are females who share the characteristic of being sexually oriented to females. This is coherent and understandable on a biological understanding of sex. On the other hand, if a GRC under section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 were to alter the meaning of sex under the EA 2010, it would mean that a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (so legally female) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian. The concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex in section 12 is rendered meaningless. It would also affect the composition of the groups who share the same sexual orientation (because a trans woman with a GRC and a sexual orientation towards women would fall to be treated as a lesbian) in a similar way as described above in relation to women and girls

The same basic thing is threaded through this whole thing, I just picked this bit because it's specifically stating that men can't be lesbians. Essentially a lot of the UK's stance on this has hinged on the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This was brought in to allow transgender women who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate to marry men in a time where same sex marriage was not allowed. It changed their legal sex to enable it. Is is an criminal offense to disclose if someone has a GRC (if this information was acquired in an official capacity).

What this has done is it's created a situation where a female single sex ward would include women, transgender men with no GRC and transgender women with a GRC, while excluding men, transgender women with no GRC and transgender men with a GRC. Attempting to create single sex spaces was possible, but you had to establish that discriminating based on sex and gender reassignment was the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and this became very difficult. And because GRCs are highly sensitive, it created a situation where service providers were basically pressured to accept self definitions without trying to ask to see a GRC.

Based on the language of the Act, the Supreme Court has ruled these sorts of situations cannot possibly be the intended outcome, from another bit -

If, in the context of equality between the sexes, the interests of trans women (biological males) who have GRCs (so are legally female) must be considered and advanced as part of the group that share the protected characteristic of being “women”, the PSED will require data collection and consideration of a heterogenous group containing biological women, some biological males with a GRC (trans women who are legally female) and excluding some biological females with a GRC (trans men who are legally male). This is a confusing group to envisage because it cuts across and fragments both biological sex and gender reassignment into heterogenous groupings which may have little in common. Any data collection exercise will be distorted by the heterogenous nature of such a group.

So likewise the ruling is clarifying that if you want to have a female ward, you can just say "biological females". If anything, this now might make having a trans inclusive women's ward more difficult, as you're having to argue why you're having a mixed sex ward but discriminating against men who don't have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (although that's a bit shakier because "not undergoing gender reassignment" isn't necessarily a protected characteristic just like "not being pregnant" isn't one).

This does have some pretty large implications but yeah, we'll need to see some legal assessments and test cases to know for sure.

 

[Ace888Ace]

I've been reading some of the judgement myself (mostly the summary. I'm not a law Kiwi, and I don't have sufficient free time to pick it apart line by line) and there's some listed reasons in the summary of why the SC made its decision that make for particularly interesting reading (italics are mine):

(xiii) That interpretation [i.e. that trans people with a GRC are considered to be their new sex under the Equality Act definition of each sex] would also seriously weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations (paras 204-209).

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-22).

(xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces (paras 229-246).

This is a fairly direct recognition of the mutual incompatibility of trans rights and women's rights in several key areas, and of the fact that in order to protect female only spaces, biological women must be recognised as legally distinct from trans women.

 

[Artificial Stupidity]

TERF Island Supreme Court continues its genocide with an unanimous decision that yes, "woman" refers to biological sex.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

This is why people hate the UK, they can score a massive win like this but still be an island of pussies being raped by refugees and "Asian" grooming gangs and getting arrested for calling someone a nigger online.

Still terf island holds onto its title. Tally ho chaps

 

['Ole Dente]

This is terrible news. If women aren't forced to share locker rooms and bathrooms with hulking trannies who stare at and rape them, they'll go right back to vote retarded pro-tranny policies.

It’s terrible news because now WE have to deal with hulking fags in dresses when we take a piss. The women voted for this inclusivity shit, they can shoulder the burden.

 

[linchan]

JK Rowling, I kneel.

 

[Londo]

Uk finally did something not cucked???? Someone kick me in the nuts, I'm convinced this is a dream

The government does not represent the people. It hasn't for at least 25 years. You cannot possibly understand how truly sick of this clown world the people of this island are, and how little acceptance of leftist driven policy there is left amongst the population.

I think we will need legal commentary on what the fallout will mean. And I don't trust the insane Scottish legislature to amend the legislation as much as possible to make it do what they wanted (including removing 'sex' from the Equality Act)

Not a solicitor, however without giving too much power leveling myself I can say I was an inconsequential part of the campaign to stop this shit -- specifically as I work in mental health services and have found dealing with trannies to be totally contradiction of good practice and proven science. It has been fucking insufferable; most nurses and doctors do not support it despite being forced to keep hushed tones.

The largest political fallout of this and largest impact that will come from this will likely be civil rather than political. It has declawed the level of power and fear the trannies can try to project on regular people.

The aspects I see this impacting in respect to importance:

Healthcare, social care and public health departments will no longer be able to discriminate against staff that do not wish to recognise mentally ill trannies.

Healthcare, social care and public health will now be able to legally deny mentally ill men from declaring themselves women to bypass the currently legal forms of discrimination that allows gender to be an allowable reason to prevent someone working with patients who select to be female only for care.

Women will now be able to legally discriminate against trannies in their space.

There is now no legal means to bully spaces to allow men in to female bathrooms.

Employers will no longer have to walk on egg shells when trying to find reasons to disallow trannies from working jobs that would only be appropriate for women or gay dudes to perform such as in beauty and other sectors with intimate access to an individuals body.

You may also start seeing legal cases brought forward against public and private entities where there has been an instance of punishment or speech suppression for not saying women can have cocks.


For me, the main aspect of this is that the highest court in the nation has determined that biology and God's design is above the mental illness and this offers immediate protection or the potential to truly make these gooned out 1% middle management brainwashed faggots hurt in the future by parting the red sea for legal challenges against those that enforce this shit.

What Americans fail to understand is that there isn't a precedent for how shitty things have been here since Blair. The UK has remained stable and lacks any serious ideological shift due to always being slightly better than the rest of Europe or by having ample resources to keep people comfortable enough not to feel the need to rebel. That's why communism, civil war and revolution never spread here from popular revolt. People here have been totally blindsided by how shitty and ideologically insane government can be -- for 400 years of parliamentary history aside from division between the Lords and commons there's never been an actual political impact to the population beyond the usual annoyances of government. This is changing, however. People no longer give a fuck about being arrested or being suppressed when their daughters and sons are being groomed and raped by a bunch of third worlders and dudes wearing a shitty pink flag.

Expect many based things to happen on these islands over the next 10 years. Even reddit can't even contain the number of people here that are sick of it and despite the efforts of the tranny janny UK mods of reddit the narrative has gone from being full unhinged leftist to actively hating all the leftist slop.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

The professional trannies are in full meltdown.

 

[monstrous bubo]

Crossposting with extra information from the social media sideshows thread.

In brief an imported American troon called Riley Dennis plays in a woman’s soccer league in the Australian state of New South Wales. He currently plays in an inclusive LGBT+ team, having been kicked out of his last one for hospitalising a couple of opponents. He also likes legally harassing a local conservative campaigner against trans women, Kirralie Smith. @Chandelier posted about this, based on a story in Reduxx:

Remember Riley Dennis? He plays on a women's soccer team, mostly made up of troons, that has smashed multiple teams and won several trophies. He's now taking a woman to court over calling him a man, and thanks to Australia's hate speech laws, he has a case.

Unfortunately that Reduxx article gets a few things wrong.

Kirralie Smith has faced eight legal actions from two tranny footballers in the last two years. Not all of them succeeded, but there were some technical legal reasons for that, so the defeats were not necessarily on the merits. Not that it matters; for Kirralie Smith, the process is the punishment.

The current one is not a criminal action, but a civil action under the state laws in NSW which ban “vilification” on various grounds, including transgender status:

The vilification case centres on two tweets, the first in which Ms Smith wrote: “I have cried a lot today… It is alleged two female soccer players were hospitalized over the weekend after being forced to play against a male appropriating womanhood.”

In the second, she posted: “Well, well, the top goal scorer after three rounds in the [Football NSW] Women’s First Grade is a male. How is that fair? That spot belongs to a woman.”

link

Riley Dennis wants:

• unspecified aggravated damages
• Ms Smith ordered to apologise and be barred from identifying Mr Dennis in future
• $100,000 for any failure to comply with those orders.

Kirralie Smith is arguing AFAICT that her right to political speech, which is an implied right under the Federal Constitution, is being exercised, and that Mr Dennis is a political activist and essentially is fair game. He has tried to claim that horrible Kirralie outed him as trans because of course no-one could tell, and that he isn’t an activist despite making YouTube videos advocating trans rights.

Smith ran a similar constitutional argument in the December 2024 case brought by Stephanie Branch who sought an AVO (a restraining order). It failed, as these arguments mostly do. A law can burden the implied freedom of political communications and still be OK if it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance its legitimate purpose, in a manner that is compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government.

Spoiler: relevant provisions

38R

In this Division--


"public act" includes--

(a) any form of communication to the public, including speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, telecasting, screening and playing of tapes or other recorded material, or

(b) any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public, including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia, or

(c) the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public with knowledge that the matter promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of--

(i) a person on the ground that the person is a transgender person, or

(ii) a group of persons on the ground that the members of the group are transgender persons.

38S TRANSGENDER VILIFICATION UNLAWFUL​

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of--

(a) a person on the ground that the person is a transgender person, or

(b) a group of persons on the ground that the members of the group are transgender persons.

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful--

(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or

(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific, research or religious discussion or instruction purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

source