Women are a minority view so should be disregarded

Rosie51

Google is a wonderful resource isn't it? Sometimes takes a while to find stuff though........

Thanks for the lecture, would be funny under other circumstances.

Merely a a clear explanation Rosie51 in context you disputed what I said earlier today. More than that you specially sought an apology from me and an admission I was wrong. You clearly see yourself as correct and I am wrong for my views and comments about the law.

As I have said, several times, politely each time, I accept you have your differing views Rose51 and so be it. Yes it is funny how some people react when you provide explanation in response to their personal comments and demand of an apology. They could simply be polite and respectfully disagree and state their reasons why instead.

Google is a wonderful resource isn't it? Sometimes takes a while to find stuff though........

Thanks for the lecture, would be funny under other circumstances.

Rosie51

LemonJam

Yes I did read your post. Accuracy is indeed important as I know from personal professional experience. Law is not 'static' however as you infer, ie law has not "always been". Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions.

You may or may not feel the 2025 case and that judicial decision, to which I referred, resulted in greater clarity regarding the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all as I stated - I feel it did. You disagreed- so be it.

I also feel the new toilet guidance to which I referred, which came about predominantly as a result of that 2025 judicial decision, made things clearer reading protecting the rights of women, men and transgender people to safe toilet spaces. You have the right to agree or disagree.

I did not disagree with the clarity I clarified that it wasn't the 2025 law it was the same law as had been. The Supreme Court did not adjust the law in any way, they reiterated that woman in the Equality act had always referred to the female sex as observed at birth. If you feel unable to admit your error in referring to the 2025 law when the 2025 ruling would have been more accurate so be it. I note you are now referring to 'the case' and the 'judicial decision' neither of which is a new law.

Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions. does not apply here, there was no change, no evolving.

Incidentally sex realist views do not conflict with human rights for all, they actually ensure them.

I beg to differ that ongoing successive judicial decisions do not apply in this case, that there was no change and there has been no evolving.

Timeline and explanation of how Law is not static and evolves:

1) The UK Gender and Recognition Act 2004 allowed UK individuals to CHANGE their legally recognised sex, unless legislation states otherwise
2) Equality Act 2010 confirmed the terms man, woman and sex 'within the Equality Act' refers strictly only to biological sex ie solely within the Equality Act.
3) Prior to 2025 ruling- EHRC stated providers of single sex or separate sex spaces could lawfully restrict access based on biological sex "IF it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
4) However the need to balance the rights of transgender people as set out in 1) and in relation to earlier HRC guidance lead to various interpretations and tensions leading to the Supreme Court case 2025
5) April 2025 Supreme Court legal case determined that the terms 'sex', 'woman, and 'man' in the Equality Act 2010, legally refers exclusively to biological sex AND was UNAFFECTED by a Gender Recognition certificate as set out in 1).
6) Following this the Equality of Human Rights Commission EHRC drafted UPDATED guidelines
7) Following this, on May 21 2026 the UK Equalities Minister, Bridget Philipson laid a NEW "Statutory Code of Practice" before UK Parliament which is currently undergoing a 40 day parliamentary review period.

This new 'Statutory Code of Practice" provides practical, legally backed guidance on how to interpret and comply with 'specific legislation' and 'must' be taken into account when resolving disputes, ie the 2025 case law to which I referred forms the basis for the May 2026 new statutory guidance.

A rule becomes "statutory" when it's "been officially written down in a law" ie the 2026 new rules emerge directly from the 2025 case law ruling to which I referred. When someone doesn't follow a 'statutory rule' then they are breaking the law.

In the interim, whilst awaiting the new EHRC guidance, 2 high profile Employment tribunals tested the 2025 Supreme Court judgement. Thus the 2025 ruling introduced new case law precedent for employment tribunals but there was no statutory guidance in support. Prior to 2025 case law and this new statutory guidance it was NOT unlawful for UK institutions or employers to allow staff into female changing rooms.

Ergo- "Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions".

LemonJam

"Incidentally sex realist views do not conflict with human rights for all, they actually ensure them".

Good to hear. Transgender people, males and females and transgender all have human rights, that is obvious and I hope that is universally accepted.

Transgender people have the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else. Those responsibilities include respecting and observing the law. I do hope those transwomen I've seen on some social media sites who are saying they will continue to use female single sex spaces don't really intend to. I'd hope nobody here would condone them doing so.

Watching Andy Burnham wriggle on the end of the hook today was entertaining.
Of course he accepts the ruling but . . .

ViceVersa

Rosie51

The 2025 law gave more clarity in light of the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all.

It is not the 2025 law, it is the same law previous to that date. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law had always been. This type of misrepresentation is why some transwomen are shouting that they've had rights taken away from them. They haven't, they never had those rights despite what Stonewall and others told them.

Exactly this. They love to claim that their 'rights' have been taken away, when in fact, they never had those supposed rights under the law.

The idea that transpeople were deprived of rights was often voiced on here, but nobody ever managed to explain what those missing rights were. Human rights apply to all, as do sex-based rights, but the trans movement wanted extra rights, based on 'feelings', to override the rights of others (usually women).

For 'the most marginalised/vulnerable group in society' that was a big ask, and fortunately for women, those extra rights have not been granted.

"Incidentally sex realist views do not conflict with human rights for all, they actually ensure them".

Good to hear. Transgender people, males and females and transgender all have human rights, that is obvious and I hope that is universally accepted.

LemonJam

Yes I did read your post. Accuracy is indeed important as I know from personal professional experience. Law is not 'static' however as you infer, ie law has not "always been". Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions.

You may or may not feel the 2025 case and that judicial decision, to which I referred, resulted in greater clarity regarding the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all as I stated - I feel it did. You disagreed- so be it.

I also feel the new toilet guidance to which I referred, which came about predominantly as a result of that 2025 judicial decision, made things clearer reading protecting the rights of women, men and transgender people to safe toilet spaces. You have the right to agree or disagree.

I did not disagree with the clarity I clarified that it wasn't the 2025 law it was the same law as had been. The Supreme Court did not adjust the law in any way, they reiterated that woman in the Equality act had always referred to the female sex as observed at birth. If you feel unable to admit your error in referring to the 2025 law when the 2025 ruling would have been more accurate so be it. I note you are now referring to 'the case' and the 'judicial decision' neither of which is a new law.

Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions. does not apply here, there was no change, no evolving.

Incidentally sex realist views do not conflict with human rights for all, they actually ensure them.

Ie You disagreed-+ with me- so be it.

Yes I did read your post. Accuracy is indeed important as I know from personal professional experience. Law is not 'static' however as you infer, ie law has not "always been". Law continually evolves through a variety of ways- 1) new Acts of Parliament, 2) ongoing successive judicial decisions and 3) EU law transitions.

You may or may not feel the 2025 case and that judicial decision, to which I referred, resulted in greater clarity regarding the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all as I stated - I feel it did. You disagreed- so be it.

I also feel the new toilet guidance to which I referred, which came about predominantly as a result of that 2025 judicial decision, made things clearer reading protecting the rights of women, men and transgender people to safe toilet spaces. You have the right to agree or disagree.

LemonJam

Rosie51

The 2025 law gave more clarity in light of the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all.

It is not the 2025 law, it is the same law previous to that date. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law had always been. This type of misrepresentation is why some transwomen are shouting that they've had rights taken away from them. They haven't, they never had those rights despite what Stonewall and others told them.

If you don't feel the 2025 legal case gave any more clarity that's fine.

Did you not read my post? Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 did not give more clarity. I pointed out you referred to the 2025 law which is totally wrong. There was no 'new law in 2025' as so many transactivists tried to imply, it was clarification of the law already in existence. Accuracy, particularly when it comes to legal matters is very important. Do you think it was a 'new' law that the Supreme Court issued? Actually an impossibility, laws are passed and enacted by parliament not judges.

Good point ViceVersa
Rights TW say they have had taken away?

Transgender women (male) state they have lost legal recognition of their gender,

Gender is a social construct. They could have themselves recognised as transwomen but that evidently won’t do.

Respect for their gender.

Farcical when they’re actually showing no respect whatsoever for females who hold the title the TW actually want.

right of access to women's single-sex spaces,

Women are adult human females. TW are not and will never be AHF, ergo never had the right of access to women’s single-sex spaces, no matter what they claim.

equal pay protections,
I don’t know about that. Are TW really fighting to get the same pay as women, or maybe feel the same impact as Waspi women?

and the right to compete in female categories within sports

TW aren’t female, so have no such right, although there have been several notorious cases of mediocre males cheats winning in female races, whilst claiming their birth sex gives them no advantage.

Rosie51

^The 2025 law gave more clarity in light of the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all.^

It is not the 2025 law, it is the same law previous to that date. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law had always been. This type of misrepresentation is why some transwomen are shouting that they've had rights taken away from them. They haven't, they never had those rights despite what Stonewall and others told them.

Exactly this. They love to claim that their 'rights' have been taken away, when in fact, they never had those supposed rights under the law.

Rosie51

^The 2025 law gave more clarity in light of the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all.^

It is not the 2025 law, it is the same law previous to that date. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law had always been. This type of misrepresentation is why some transwomen are shouting that they've had rights taken away from them. They haven't, they never had those rights despite what Stonewall and others told them.

If you don't feel the 2025 legal case gave any more clarity that's fine.

I’m so pleased others agree with me.
I’ve thought for a long time that the phrasing was wrong, possibly deliberately.
And yes, Rosie21 , cis is just awful.

JenniferEccles

Does anyone else think the phrases used to describe trans people are the wrong way round?

Yes and I think it was deliberate.
It’s certainly used deliberately now, to imply that men should be allowed to do whatever they want and women’s feelings, rights or concerns are of no importance, or only a minority.

And to add, the descriptor 'cis' added to biological women is designed to make them a subset of their own sex class. It's insulting and was not coined by women but by transgender activists.

JenniferEccles of course what you say is perfectly logical and would, I suspect, be endorsed by the majority. It was a deliberate decision to phrase the terms the way they are to cause just that confusion. In early opinion polls huge numbers of people thought exactly what you've said, that a transwoman was a woman who wanted to be a man. That influenced some of the answers.

Does anyone else think the phrases used to describe trans people are the wrong way round?

In my view only biological women have the right to use the word women in any description.
Therefore my view is biological males who want to ‘be’ female should be called trans men, so there is no confusion about their true sex.
Likewise biological women who want to identify as male, should be trans women.

To me it’s logical. No confusion. Despite how people wanted to identify, they are still biologically male or female.

The 2025 law gave more clarity in light of the tension between gender critical views and human rights for all.

It is not the 2025 law, it is the same law previous to that date. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law had always been. This type of misrepresentation is why some transwomen are shouting that they've had rights taken away from them. They haven't, they never had those rights despite what Stonewall and others told them.

Thanks though Rosie, I always wondered what people would do when this was all over ( and it is mostly over now I think) some are of course doubling down, but I think the most common reaction will be to pretend it just didn't happen, my guess is that in a few years time politicians will just pretend they were on women's 'side' anyway.

Fallingstar

Am sick and tired of men telling us what we should tolerate. Why can’t women be trusted on this topic, as per.

Exactly this!

Oops, sorry I got called away and hadn't refreshed the page. Galaxy has already answered for herself.

Yes those women weren't hateful bigots after all. Who knew.

Well said Galaxy! The personal price these brave women have paid to secure the sex based rights of all women has been huge in so many instances. What is worse is that some of the abuse and persecution came from other women who weren't affected because they were never going to be in situations where the presence of transwomen would affect them.
Hopefully the rights of women to single sex services, sports, hospital wards etc will all now be protected, and no more fudging. Transwomen are male, they will never be female, the Supreme Court confirmed that in the Equality Act woman means female at birth. Only took just over a year for the guidance to be updated.
I'm sure Galaxy can answer for herself but I took her comment to mean "cleared up" as some are saying rather diminishes the brave and arduous struggle some women participated in to get to this result.