Non-motoring > Supreme Court decision	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Bobby	Replies: 97

Wed 16 Apr 25 15:27   Supreme Court decision - Bobby

I am delighted with today’s decisions but will be interested to see how this is implemented in practice. I fell out with SNP for their gender policies and everything that this led to. If anyone is interested in how this came about I recommend the book “Woman who won’t Wheesht” which is basically a series of essays by the individual campaigners, how the gender laws affected them and why they ultimately gathered together and formed For Woman Scotland. It was FWS that got this case all the way to Supreme Court. A real live David and Goliath situation. (Also on audiobook on Spotify of that’s your thing) So many people of all levels have suffered enormously because they challenged the definition of what a woman was. Careers lost, physically and verbally attacked, social media pile ons. Delighted for them all. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 16 Apr 25 22:23   Supreme Court decision - sooty123

I can't say i knew this was a thing in the courts, passed me by. Mind you I find this whole topic confusing. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 07:50   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> I can't say i knew this was a thing in the courts, passed me by. >> Mind you I find this whole topic confusing. I'm not sure the SC decision makes it any less confusing!! Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 09:34   Supreme Court decision - Falkirk Bairn

NHS Fife has spent up to £1m. so far, between a court case and an Emploment Tribunal. 50 year old female nurse of 30 years experience objected to a Doctor, born male, allowed in Female Changing Rooms. A fairly junior Fife NHS HR employee (active in LGBT community....) said it was OK, SNP supported NHS Fife Board and advised on matters. A Glasgow University Law Department spokesman said it was against the UK laws dating back decades. As my wife & I have said to each other for over 56 years (and anyone who asks) Everyone can lead their lives as they want as long as it does not invade / disadvantage our lives OR the lives of other ordinary, law-abiding people of the UK. The SNP Government now looks to be on the hook for huge compensation claims against them. Huge fees for QCs, KCs, Court time and compensation to individuals and charities going back many years. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 09:51   Supreme Court decision - Manatee

So is the doctor in that case invading or disadvantaging the nurse's life? What point are you making? I suspect we might agree. I just want everybody to have what I call a peaceful carry on, free from aggression or unwanted interference from people who think they can just do what they want regardless. I'm more irked by people emptying their dogs on the footpath outside my house, tailgating, littering, parking where they ought not to, and putting their feet on train seats than I am by somebody's choice of toilet. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 10:17   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> So is the doctor in that case invading or disadvantaging the nurse's life? What point >> are you making? That's the point I'm struggling with. On the face of it the doctor looks like a woman. Is there evidence they're a threat or is the issue just what they have in their pants? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 11:11   Supreme Court decision - Falkirk Bairn

The nurse felt "very uneasy" at seeing Dr Beth Upton (born male but living as female - hair, make up/dress etc etc) in the Ladies Changing Room/Toilets. The Doctor is said to still possess "wedding tackle" and I believe lives/lived with and is a married with a wife. All very complicated (many weeks of court action and more to come) and "highly charged atmosphere" the only winners so far, IMHO are the lawyers. NHS Fife, in the last 2 weeks or so, was seeking to bar YouTube coverage of hearings when Dr Upton takes the stand. Activists are said to be challenging sessions being held "in private" Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 12:08   Supreme Court decision - CGNorwich

>> >> I'm more irked by people emptying their dogs on the footpath outside my house, tailgating, >> littering, parking where they ought not to, and putting their feet on train seats than >> I am by somebody's choice of toilet. >> Yes but it seems to me totally understandable that women and girls feel uncomfortable and in some case threatened by men accessing women’s toilets even if they are dressed as women and wearing makeup Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 16:33   Supreme Court decision - Kevin

And I have some sympathy for men dressed as women using men's toilets. Have you ever tried having a P while holding your tights down and your evening gown up at the same time? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 16:37   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> And I have some sympathy for men dressed as women using men's toilets. >> >> Have you ever tried having a P while holding your tights down and your evening >> gown up at the same time? One of the oddities of this debate is the focus on male>female. I know two trans people; one moving in each direction. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 19:04   Supreme Court decision - Kevin

>One of the oddities of this debate is the focus on male>female. Well, women complaining that they can't use men's changing rooms or toilets doesn't seem to get much media coverage. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 21:00   Supreme Court decision - Robin O'Reliant

>> >> >> One of the oddities of this debate is the focus on male>female. >> >> I know two trans people; one moving in each direction. >> I don't know any men who would feel threatened by a woman using the same changing room. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 22:01   Supreme Court decision - Kevin

>I don't know any men who would feel threatened by a woman using the same changing room. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo9AMQTCDxs Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 22:33   Supreme Court decision - legacylad

>> I know two trans people; one moving in each direction. >> I know of trans pennine. Anyone with sense heads east. Talking of women in men’s toilets…last month at Alicante airport there was a female mopping the floor behind me whilst I had a pee. A week later in Valencia main bus station I had to pay a female one euro to take a leak. Can’t say that either event bothered me, but what really irks me ate female partners instigating a conversation with you through a closed toilet door whilst you are on the throne. That really gets my goat. Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 17 Apr 25 at 22:34 Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 09:15   Supreme Court decision - bathtub tom

>> Have you ever tried having a P while holding your tights down and your evening >> gown up at the same time? Never happened to me and (hopefully) never likely to. I did feel a brief sense of dread, using the gents at a Rocky Horror Show and seeing a line of people in high heels, fishnet stockings and short skirts lined up at the urinals. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 15:09   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> And I have some sympathy for men dressed as women using men's toilets. >> >> Have you ever tried having a P while holding your tights down and your evening >> gown up at the same time? Kevin try wearing stockings, it's much easier Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 16:07   Supreme Court decision - zippy

>> >> Kevin try wearing stockings, it's much easier >> Sounds like you're talking from experience! :-D Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 19 Apr 25 13:23   Supreme Court decision - Kevin

>Kevin try wearing stockings, it's much easier Oh, I do now but it's something you don't think about at first isn't it? About 40BC Mrs K and I went to a fancy dress as Bonnie and Clyde. Me in blonde wig, tights, black evening gown, full makeup, the whole kit and caboodle. First problem was trying to walk in heels, second problem was having a pee and third problem was being patted on the ass by a tipsy old letch. To round off the evening a sliver of glass broke off the neck of an overtightened bottle of makeup remover and I cut my eyelid getting the warpaint off. www.amazon.co.uk/photos/share/n7OYLjUjPvoeOx2PSIfI1vZuFOCL2WUaZiXFQXqL1GB Won a bottle of cheap wine though. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 16:48   Supreme Court decision - Manatee

>>Yes but it seems to me totally understandable that women and girls feel uncomfortable and in some case threatened Indeed but I don't know what to do about it. It seems crazy to think of building another 2 types of toilet, one each for trans men and trans women. Or perhaps the men can just put up with the trans men so we only need one extra for the trans women? But how would the trans women feel about that? There are such things as unisex toilets already. I'm not unsympathetic to anyone who's anxious, and even more so for those who feel they have the wrong body, but I find it very difficult to have an opinion on this whole area which is possibly owing to a deficiency of knowledge. Related, it does seem to me to be obviously unfair to have hairy brutes who went through puberty as males playing in women's sports competitions in which physical strength is a competitive advantage but 'they' can't even seem to resolve that. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 16:57   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Related, it does seem to me to be obviously unfair to have hairy brutes who >> went through puberty as males playing in women's sports competitions in which physical strength is >> a competitive advantage but 'they' can't even seem to resolve that. I'm generally in the transwomen are women camp but sport, particularly professional/elite sport, is an exception I'd be OK with. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 17:48   Supreme Court decision - CGNorwich

"Indeed but I don't know what to do about it" Quite simply suppliers of single sex spaces for women like hospital wards, sports clup changing rooms and toilet will mean tha they are for women only. How it always was before this nonsense started. If a sign says say women only it it means biological women only. For toilets a practical solution is for transgender personsis to use the unisex disabled toilet Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 18:09   Supreme Court decision - Manatee

>> For toilets a practical solution is for transgender person sis to use the unisex disabled toilet I think the conclusion then is that the battle will continue! I think there's just an eternal truth that minorities have to be reconciled to compromise. Which is at least practical. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 00:39   Supreme Court decision - CGNorwich

I really don’t see the problem. Everybody to use the toilet assigned to their biological sex. If they don’t want to for whatever reason they can use the disabled facility. Assuming that the reason they want to use the toilet is genuine need then I can’t see any grounds for a transgender person to object. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Fri 18 Apr 25 12:16   Supreme Court decision - zippy

>> I really don’t see the problem. >> Everybody to use the toilet assigned to their biological sex. If they don’t want to >> for whatever reason they can use the disabled facility. >> >> Assuming that the reason they want to use the toilet is genuine need then I >> can’t see any grounds for a transgender person to object. >> Seems eminently sensible. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 12:27   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> I really don’t see the problem. >> Everybody to use the toilet assigned to their biological sex. If they don’t want to >> for whatever reason they can use the disabled facility. >> >> Assuming that the reason they want to use the toilet is genuine need then I >> can’t see any grounds for a transgender person to object. Have you seen the fuss people make about using the disabled when you're anything short of paraplegic? Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 12:44   Supreme Court decision - sooty123

Have you seen the fuss people make about using the disabled when you're anything short >> of paraplegic? >> >> Can't say i have, i used them all the time when the kids were little, all the extra space was very handy with little ones. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 13:13   Supreme Court decision - zippy

>> Have you seen the fuss people make about using the disabled when you're anything short >> >> of paraplegic? >> >> >> >> >> >> Can't say i have, i used them all the time when the kids were little, >> all the extra space was very handy with little ones. >> I have used them when the kids were very young with no issues. I have queued up for the "mothers and baby" facilities when the kids were very little. Most mothers were fine with it. One chavvy "cow" who I was in front of, had a right moan, "you're not a mother, were the kids mine etc." and tried to get other women involved. A glare stopped the moaning and several of the other ladies piped up in support of me. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 13:19   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Can't say i have, i used them all the time when the kids were little, >> all the extra space was very handy with little ones. I used to work with a bloke who had Spina Bifida and used a wheelchair. He could move in/out of it unassisted but would have struggled in an ordinary loo. He got very cross indeed about somebody from another floor, a youngish woman with no visible disability, using the disabled loo. I have an invisible disability in that I get the point where I've got to go or wet myself. Was tutted for using the disabled along the route march from the gate to UK Borders at Birmingham airport. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 13:58   Supreme Court decision - sooty123

Was tutted for using the disabled along the route march from >> the gate to UK Borders at Birmingham airport. >> Someone may well have huffed and puffed about it, at the time though i would have been completely oblivious. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 13:50   Supreme Court decision - Alanovich

But the ruling doesn't define "biological sex" so far as I can tell. Is it genitals, chromosomes, hormones, gametes, what is is it? Who is going to check this at a toilet door. Can Police now strip search anyone they believe is trans? WTF is going on. This is all just Labour wanting to sweep this under the carpet and look like they're responsible for some Reform-style "common sense" (i.e. bigotry) in the red wall. (See also their mental approach to EU relations and immigration matters.) I do get utterly depressed that this complex matter is always reduced to oo uses wot toilet. The real problem women have out there in the real world is the level of straight men attacking/raping/murdering women in just about every place imaginable other than public toilet - more often than not in their own homes. The risk of a trans woman causing anyone harm in a public toilet is vanishingly small, yet here we are with this issue blown completely out of proportion because it generates rage clicks from the usual cohorts of society - the terminally outraged, bigoted and stupid. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 13:54   Supreme Court decision - Bobby

It had nothing to do with Labour. Was as a result of SNP Govt allowing trans women to go on public bodies and count towards their female quotas. This was challenged and ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court. Whether the issue is a man dressed as a woman using the ladies toilet in spoons, or a man who has been convicted of rape and then deciding he now is a woman, it’s all about protection of women. Biological women. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 14:00   Supreme Court decision - Alanovich

Labour are taking advantage of the ruling to present themselves as champions of certain types, claim "common sense" has won the day against woke nonsense and making it look like no further debate is needed, is what I was saying. And also you ignore the point that biological womanhood remains undefined, and we have no clarity on how anyone goes about proving it when challenged. The UK government is now desperately trying to pretend it's the end of the matter as they don't have those answers and would like it all to go away now please. Last edited by: Alanovich on Tue 22 Apr 25 at 14:02 Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 14:14   Supreme Court decision - Alanovich

Actually it's worse than I first thought, I see now the government are telling people today that trans women should use men's toilets. From the mouths of Brigit Phillipson and Kier Starmer's official spokesperson. There's absolutely no legal basis for this and they have absolutely no right to be saying that. They are the executive branch of government, not an elected dictatorship. Labour appear to be veering quite assuredly down the path set by the Republican party in the US - i.e. the executive branch overstepping its role on the basis of "will of the people" and "common sense" nonsense. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 15:41   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Actually it's worse than I first thought, I see now the government are telling people >> today that trans women should use men's toilets. Spot on. I'm so angry about this that if I'd not already resigned from the LAbour Party over rightward drift I'd go now. Barely two years ago we regarded 'use the facilities for your birth sex' as lunacy from the weirdos in odd US States. Now we've got our own ministers advocating it. I'm waiting for the fuss when the bearded trans men go into the women's loos. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 16:24   Supreme Court decision - Manatee

>> I see now the government are telling people today that trans women should use men's toilets. That would clearly (to me) be bonkers. This is pretty much why I say I have no opinion on this except that tolerance and understanding should prevail (I'm trying not to say common sense because that all seems to be very reactionary in nature). I quite understand why women generally don't want just any hairy bloke who self-identifies as a woman using their single sex spaces. I also understand why trans women want to be treated as other women. No law or judgement is going to fix this. The 'pragmatic' solution re toilets is "use the unisex disabled" but I also understand that disabled folk resent fully able people making free with 'their' facilities which usually consist of only one cubicle. Dare I suggest that all public lavs should be unisex? I haven't any dog in the fight or much first hand experience except from about 20 years ago when a male colleague let it be known that he would thenceforth be living as a woman, which to all outward appearances he did. Quite why this appeared to result in her losing her management position I never found out, but I felt great sympathy because many female colleagues did not, and objected strongly to her sharing 'their' facilities. Yes it's a shame it always seem to come down to toilets, but that seems to be where 'live and let live' is better in theory than in practise. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 15:47   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>>Whether the issue is a man dressed as a woman using the ladies toilet in >> spoons, or a man who has been convicted of rape and then deciding he now >> is a woman, it’s all about protection of women. Biological women. Can you point us to a single example of a man dressed as a woman assaulting someone in the loo at 'spoons? Even transwomen in the female prison estate are not mixing with those born as women. We're now in the position where my former colleague who has gone the entire trans journey of having surgery, so has breasts and what (I assume) pass muster as female genitalia AND got a female birth certificate to prove it has to pee in the mens. It bears no relationship to reality and needs an urgent dose of bravery and common sense. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 16:05   Supreme Court decision - Alanovich

>> We're now in the position where my former colleague who has gone the entire trans >> journey of having surgery, so has breasts and what (I assume) pass muster as female >> genitalia AND got a female birth certificate to prove it has to pee in the >> mens. Fortunately for this individual, for the time being, Kier Starmer's appalling words today have no effect in law. They are merely performative, for the benefit of the clapping seal bigots. They are, however, dangerous, confusing, and likely to be keenly misimplemented by those in peaked caps, of both the Official Constabulary and the unofficial variety. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 16:26   Supreme Court decision - Terry

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If it looks like a female, acts like a female etc ............... If it looks like a bloke, smells like a bloke ......... In pursuit of compliance will those with an urgent need be asked to drop knickers or pants to demonstrate whether the appropriate dangly bits are present. Who will be given the enviable task of inspecting said "bits". A truly pointless argument!! There are a limited number of places where the male, female, trans issue may be relevant - prisons, sporting events, possibly hospital wards. Those responsible should be entirely capable of defining appropriate rules. If they can't - fire them and get someone who can. I fully support the (possibly over simplistic) "there are just two sexes" approach. Whatever judgement the Supreme Court had issued one group or another would whinge. The fuss and noise over the court judgement is futile - just get used to it, behave like adults and leave the toys in the pram. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 20:53   Supreme Court decision - Fullchat

"Can you point us to a single example of a man dressed as a woman assaulting someone in the loo at 'spoons?" To be fair they'd probably be too cream crackered by the time they'd climbed all the stairs. :/ Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 21:11   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> "Can you point us to a single example of a man dressed as a woman >> assaulting someone in the loo at 'spoons?" >> >> To be fair they'd probably be too cream crackered by the time they'd climbed all >> the stairs. :/ And slipped om the vomit stains.... Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 20:50   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> But the ruling doesn't define "biological sex" so far as I can tell. Is it >> genitals, chromosomes, hormones, gametes, what is is it? Who is going to check this at >> a toilet door. Can Police now strip search anyone they believe is trans? Legally Its all about your Birth Certificate. Which is a problem- 40 years ago 'er indoors was a nurse at GOS. They had a unit there for babies born with genital defects. Then they were called hermaphrodite, today they are called intersex. The variations were wide, some with (or would develop) both sets of reproductive organs, to those who would lean one way or the other and could not clearly be sexually defined, genetics and chromosomes and dna were not as advanced then as they are now. Either way its a legal requirement to register the birth of a child within 42 days, and its a legal requirement to define a clear gender on that certificate. So a doctor (or an even less informed midwife) back then had to "take a shot" at gender with little or no time to make a deeper informed choice, or even the tools to do so. I think now, with medical records, its possible to change the actual defined sex, and its a real birth certificate, not a gender recognition certificate. I dont think anyone, even women, have an issue with people who have had biological or hormonal issues with gender and had a sex change using women only spaces. They do however have an issue with "lifestyle or radical" non biological women using their spaces, and frankly I dont blame them. Last edited by: Zero on Tue 22 Apr 25 at 20:51 Reply to this message | Report message       1

Tue 22 Apr 25 21:11   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> I dont think anyone, even women, have an issue with people who have had biological >> or hormonal issues with gender and had a sex change using women only spaces. They >> do however have an issue with "lifestyle or radical" non biological women using their spaces, >> and frankly I dont blame them. Can you explain what you mean by "lifestyle or radical" non biological women? Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 21:20   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> >> I dont think anyone, even women, have an issue with people who have had >> biological >> >> or hormonal issues with gender and had a sex change using women only spaces. >> They >> >> do however have an issue with "lifestyle or radical" non biological women using their >> spaces, >> >> and frankly I dont blame them. >> >> Can you explain what you mean by "lifestyle or radical" non biological women? Yes, those without sexual biologcal or hormonal issues and going through gender reasignment surgery ( I know part of that is having to live as a woman). The noisy gender activist drag queen types. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 21:19   Supreme Court decision - zippy

>>Legally Its all about your Birth Certificate. >>Which is a problem- 40 years ago 'er indoors was a nurse at GOS. They had a unit there for >>babies born with genital.... There was a programme on Radio 4 some time ago about a man who had 3 chromosomes. He had the parts of a male but his majority of chromosomes were female. Apparently is a known and rare genetic anomaly. The same sort of thing that gives rise to children with Downs syndrome. In all other respects he was "normal", but he and his partner were finding it difficult to conceive and the tests showed that this condition was likely the reason. This is just one of the huge number of complexities out there. AIUI about 2% of the population are clinically intersex. I guess they could be prosecuted / persecuted whatever toilets that they use. Madness. What if the well meaning medics get it wrong on the birth certificate - they'd be impacted for life. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 21:44   Supreme Court decision / Brianna Ghey - zippy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Brianna_Ghey Brianna was a young transgender girl who was brutally murdered - mainly because of what she was. I suspect that young Brianna would be considered as a "lifestyle" trans person. Regardless, she had every right to live that life and was not hurting anyone else, yet she was beaten up at school, had attempts to poison her and was eventually murdered. This was intolerable. Some of the hate speech being espoused on both sides could lead to further tragedies. Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 22:04   Supreme Court decision / Brianna Ghey - Zero

>> Brianna was a young transgender girl who was brutally murdered - mainly because of what >> she was. >> >> I suspect that young Brianna would be considered as a "lifestyle" trans person. I suspect not, she just happened to bump into a disturbed person(s) Reply to this message | Report message

Tue 22 Apr 25 22:52   Supreme Court decision / Brianna Ghey - zippy

>> >> >> Brianna was a young transgender girl who was brutally murdered - mainly because of >> what >> >> she was. >> >> >> >> I suspect that young Brianna would be considered as a "lifestyle" trans person. >> >> I suspect not, she just happened to bump into a disturbed person(s) >> No, she was targeted by people she knew (from her school) and who knew what she was and who were transphobic. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 08:57   Supreme Court decision / Brianna Ghey - Zero

>> No, she was targeted by people she knew (from her school) and who knew what >> she was and who were transphobic. And were jealous of the - mostly - positive reactions of her schoolmates she had. It was a far from typical transphobic attack. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 15:48   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Legally Its all about your Birth Certificate. Not after the SC decision. My former colleague who has had the 'Full Monty' hormones and surgery has a birth certificate in their female name. But according to Bridget Phillipson she should pee in the gents. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 17:13   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> >> Legally Its all about your Birth Certificate. >> >> Not after the SC decision. Sorry? I thought that was what the SC decision was. Whats on your birth certificate is your defined legal gender, Is that not the case? Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Apr 25 at 17:14 Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 20:55   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Sorry? I thought that was what the SC decision was. Whats on your birth certificate >> is your defined legal gender, Is that not the case? I think not. AIUI you can be born male, have the 'full Monty' as above, get a Gender Recognition Certificate to say you're female, ie procure you a birt certificate in the female name, but that doesn't count for the Equalities Act after last week's SC decision. If I'm wrong please tell me how. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 22:19   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> If I'm wrong please tell me how. As in the gender recognition certificate does not automatically change your birth certificate, and that the SC has said that under the equallities act, the BC is what defines your legal biological sex? The GRC on its own, is useless Records state that only about 8000 people have actually succsessfully changed gender. - legally. Its quite an involved lengthy process Sorry are we talking at cross purpussies? Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Apr 25 at 22:22 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 09:54   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Sorry are we talking at cross purpussies? We may be. AIUI the GRC isn't something like credit card or driving licence you tuck in your pocket. Rather it takes the form of a direction to the Registrar General to issue a replacement birth certificate in the subject 'acquired gender'. There are quite strong protections for the confidentiality of that process. My former colleague transitioned in public view but if they had done the change under cover as it were and been posted to a new job then disclosing their status has significant penalties. The SC decision raises some practical issues as to 'how do they know' the person applying for a job has transitioned. Some never fully rise to the challenge of 'performing femininity' but others, there's a transman working in training etc in my area of work and, if I'd not met them while they were on their journey I don't think I'd have a clue. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 11:29   Supreme Court decision - Zero

>> Rather it takes the form of a direction to the Registrar General to issue a >> replacement birth certificate in the subject 'acquired gender'. No its not. Check out the process to change your Gender on your birth certificate. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 13:02   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> No its not. Check out the process to change your Gender on your birth certificate. The GR Act requires that the Certificate is sent to the relevant Registrar General. Whether any further action is required by the subject to trigger a new Birth Cert is not clear but I maintain the line it's not something you'd whack on the table if challenged in the Ladies loos. I think the SC decision has driven a coach and horses through the GRC regime and the Government is going to either do something to correct that or live with a steaming legislative mess. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 09:32   Supreme Court decision - tyrednemotional

>> Indeed but I don't know what to do about it. It seems crazy to think >> of building another 2 types of toilet, one each for trans men and trans women. >> Or perhaps the men can just put up with the trans men so we only >> need one extra for the trans women? But how would the trans women feel about >> that? >> The girls from SR Gents in Doncaster never had any problem with using the Gents in the lunchtime break in The Corner Pin when the Ladies was fully occupied, and that was 50+ years ago, long before we got equality with them. It was quite intimidating if you were in there mid-stream when they burst in. (Mind you, the effect of meeting them en-masse in the street was also pretty intimidating ;-) ) Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Fri 18 Apr 25 at 09:33 Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 11:59   Supreme Court decision - Fullchat

Ive just had a flashback of times standing at a urinal in the Winter Gardens, Cleethorpes when females would reverse up to a urinal and take a pee. Happy days :O Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:21   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> Ive just had a flashback of times standing at a urinal in the Winter Gardens, >> Cleethorpes when females would reverse up to a urinal and take a pee. Happy days >> :O In French Motorway services it's not unusual to see women nip into the Gents to avoid the queue for cubicles in the Ladies. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:13   Supreme Court decision - bathtub tom

>> The girls from SR Gents in Doncaster never had any problem with using the Gents >> in the lunchtime break in The Corner Pin when the Ladies was fully occupied, and >> that was 50+ years ago, long before we got equality with them. IIRC, it was perfectly legal for a female to use a public gents, but illegal for a male to enter a female toilet. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 10:15   Supreme Court decision - Bromptonaut

>> NHS Fife has spent up to £1m. so far, between a court case and an >> Emploment Tribunal. It's possible NHS Fife picked the wrong case to battle. It's also possible that the wind has changed while the case has been ongoing. Still trying to pick my way through the readouts on yesterday's SC decision form legal commentators. Initial thought it's not as far reaching as mainstream media suggest and is focussed on the meaning of the words in the Equality Act. It doesn't empower the toilet police for example. I'm still baffled as to how people dealing with public appointments will know whether the female>male transitioner I know is not the sex it says on their birth certificate. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Thu 17 Apr 25 11:36   Supreme Court decision - Robin O'Reliant

>> >> >> I'm still baffled as to how people dealing with public appointments will know whether the >> female>male transitioner I know is not the sex it says on their birth certificate. >> Because they're like vegans, they insist on telling everybody. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 11:40   Supreme Court decision - Falkirk Bairn

>>Because they're like vegans, they insist on telling everybody. How do you know someone runs Triathlons? They will tell you after you say hello! Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 20:24   Supreme Court decision - maltrap

Common sense has prevailed, for once! Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 22:31   Supreme Court decision - John Boy

Transgender barrister's opinion: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/supreme-court-tough-day-trans-people-labour Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 17 Apr 25 22:31   Supreme Court decision - Ted

Anyone want to buy an unworn Gingham frock and red high heels, size 11. Going cheap ! Ted Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 13:34   Supreme Court decision - Terry

Which ever way the court judged would be perceived by one or the other group as a denial of what they regard as a right - not to feel threatened or discriminated against. That the judges favour a biological definition (a) removes uncertainty, and (b) can be established at birth based upon physical evidence. That the trans community feel their needs have been ignored needs to be balanced against the rest of the community who may otherwise feel threatened. The alternative of separate facilities is economically untenable. The suggestion that the trans community should use disabled facilities may easily be taken as insulting both to trans and the disabled. In summary - the confusion needed to be resolved. It has been. Get on with it. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 13:40   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - zippy

This is from TalkTV so a huge pinch of salt needed. A man claims to have been arrested for saying that "women cannot have penises". youtu.be/7mnq7yuAHSY?t=327 Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 16:04   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Fullchat

These words have been attributed to JK Rowling. I don't know whether that is true or not: THE FACT THAT SO MANY UK TRANS ACTIVISTS ARE SHRIEKING ABOUT INJUSTICE SAYS IT ALL. YOU NEVER HAD THE RIGHTS YOU CLAIM YOU'VE NOW LOST; YOU HAD DEMANDS. YOUR SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT GREW UNCHECKED BECAUSE COWARDS AND IDIOTS BOWED DOWN TO YOUR CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION. NO LONGER. (Sorry about the shouty capitals but its copied and transferred by email from t'internet) Whilst some sense of reason has returned I still believe its an area where there should be tolerance, acceptance and some adjustment. It is a two way street. Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 18 Apr 25 at 16:05 Reply to this message | Report message       2

Fri 18 Apr 25 16:14   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - zippy

>>Whilst some sense of reason has returned I still believe its an area where there should be >>tolerance, acceptance and some adjustment. It is a two way street. Totally. Live and let live. I can't imagine that the vast majority of trans people are doing it for a laugh. It's clearly something wrong* somewhere. There are a few chancers no doubt, but I suspect that 99% are genuine. *wrong as in the sense that biology or wiring is wrong and not incorrect or bad. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:26   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Ted

A colleague and I used to patrol an evening beat on Market Street and Piccadilly in the evening. Always doubled up in case pf bovver. We used to chat to the ladyboys and the prossies. The boys were gorgeous, the girls less so ! No-one claimed to be trans-gender, it was all about money. One of the bys told us that, after picking up a male client and finding a quiet doorway, the client thrust his hand straight into the ladyboy's crotch with the gruff, many retort " Oi ! t*ts first !" How we chuckled ! Ted Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:37   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - zippy

On revisiting my post, the word should be "different" or "differently" and not "wrong". Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:00   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

There was a woman on Times Radio yesterday from, I think, Sex Matters. The vituperation she disclosed to trans women with GRCs - the example was the trans woman who was a judge - was terrifying. These people are extremists. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 17:02   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> Whilst some sense of reason has returned I still believe its an area where there >> should be tolerance, acceptance and some adjustment. It is a two way street. Sex Matters et al are not interested in tolerance. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 19:34   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - John Boy

Trans women become so because they are unhappy as men. The women who complain just make life more difficult for them. I perceive it as a lack of compassion. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Fri 18 Apr 25 21:01   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - zippy

>> Trans women become so because they are unhappy as men. The women who complain just >> make life more difficult for them. I perceive it as a lack of compassion. >> I think it's more than just being unhappy. There must be a fundamental urge to change for that person. According to the news JKR has just had a go at the trans woman India Willoughby who is living as a full time woman and has done for some time. It is not right and as you say, is a total lack of compassion. We should be better than her. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Fri 18 Apr 25 22:02   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bobby

JK and India are constantly having twitter battles. It’s nothing new. India says she is a woman and no court will tell her different. They just did. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 18 Apr 25 23:50   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - zippy

What's the issue that these people have with transgender people? The vast vast majority are not trying to take anything away from women or ogle them in the toilets / changing room. Dodgy guys pretending, to get free kicks will be found out. Reply to this message | Report message       2

Sat 19 Apr 25 07:52   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> What's the issue that these people have with transgender people? The vast vast majority are >> not trying to take anything away from women or ogle them in the toilets / >> changing room. The irony is that the extremist from Sex Matters was talking about men with beards in the Ladies. If this case means that people have to use the facilities for their birth sex there'll be a few more; the trans man who has born kids has an impressive full set!! Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 19 Apr 25 11:26   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Terry

A blonde joke (trans or otherwise) to lighten the mood#: A blonde gets a job as a physical education teacher of 16 year olds. She notices a boy at the end of the field standing alone, while all the other kids are running around having fun kicking a football. She takes pity on him and decides to speak to him. 'You ok?' she asks. 'Yes,' he replies. 'You can go and play with the other kids, you know,' she says. 'It's best I stay here,' he says. 'Why's that, sweetie?' asks the blonde. The boy looks at her incredulously and says: "Because I'm the goal keeper !!!" Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 22:15   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - bathtub tom

Where's this put Keir after Kemi said he hasn't got the balls? Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 22:24   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Manatee

Kemi hasn't laid a glove on him yet has she? I didn't see this one but usually she has her facts wrong. I'm not sure the judgement has solved very much. I don't think the issue was really 'feminized' trans women but a ruling in Scotland which effectively meant a hairy a***d, fully intact male with predatory intentions could in effect identify as a female and immediately have the right to use women's single sex spaces. In making the judgement the court appears to have thrown out the 'authentic' trans women with the putative predatory males. Reply to this message | Report message

Wed 23 Apr 25 22:29   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

At the end of the day, its not what us hairy a***d blokes thinks that counts. Its how our women folk think, talking to my woman folk, she is happy with someone who has medically transitioned, not so some bloke in a dress waving his willy and GRC (which is worthless) about in the ladies loo. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Thu 24 Apr 25 12:57   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Robin O'Reliant

>> At the end of the day, its not what us hairy a***d blokes thinks that >> counts. Its how our women folk think, talking to my woman folk, she is happy >> with someone who has medically transitioned, not so some bloke in a dress waving his >> willy and GRC (which is worthless) about in the ladies loo. >> That is Mrs O'Reliant's view too, and one I would endorse. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 13:04   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> At the end of the day, its not what us hairy a***d blokes thinks that >> counts. Its how our women folk think, talking to my woman folk, she is happy >> with someone who has medically transitioned, not so some bloke in a dress waving his >> willy and GRC (which is worthless) about in the ladies loo. I doubt that anybody who has jumped through the hoops required for a GRC is going to present as a bloke in a dress who waves their willy. And if they do there's plenty of existing legal remedy to deal with it. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 15:52   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

>> I doubt that anybody who has jumped through the hoops required for a GRC is >> going to present as a bloke in a dress who waves their willy. What you and I think is not the point or relevant. its what biological women (inc those who have transitioned fully) think. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 16:13   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> What you and I think is not the point or relevant. its what biological women >> (inc those who have transitioned fully) think. I think law has wider responsibility than to give an effective veto to biological women (or men in case of the gents) setting themselves up as toilet police. And of course if we now say transmen should use the ladies and transwomen the mens that falls away too. As things now stand those who have fully transitioned (whatever that means) seem to have no say at all. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 17:14   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

>> >> What you and I think is not the point or relevant. its what biological >> women >> >> (inc those who have transitioned fully) think. >> >> I think law has wider responsibility than to give an effective veto to biological women >> (or men in case of the gents) setting themselves up as toilet police. They didn't, they only reaffirmed that under gender laws in force your birth certificate defines your sex. Thats not radical, its pretty clear, and legally flawless. There is a way to change your birth certificate with good cause, evidence and effort. >> And of course if we now say transmen should use the ladies and transwomen the >> mens that falls away too. R*******, as blokes we dont need protection and frankly most of us dont care who uses our loos. >> As things now stand those who have fully transitioned (whatever that means) seem to have >> no say at all. They can change their birth certificate as above and have the say of a woman. At the end of the day, the SC was forced to step in because of the SNP's laissez faire and careless attitude to the law. Everyone knows they merely did this to garner as many votes as they could by appealing to radical elements, an action severely flawed, as Bobby states it cost them votes. In short the people of Scotland, by a majority, agree with the SC. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 17:45   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

Bottom line is that the SC judgement seems to say that, even with GRC, if you were born a man you remain one for the purposes of the Equality Act. Am I wrong? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 17:48   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Falkirk Bairn

You are 100% correct! Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 17:53   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

>> Bottom line is that the SC judgement seems to say that, even with GRC, if >> you were born a man you remain one for the purposes of the Equality Act. >> >> >> Am I wrong? > No because the GRC is not your legal sex, its a hal way house Its all about the birth certificate, which you can change, whats wrong with that? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 17:59   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> No because the GRC is not your legal sex, its a hal way house Its >> all about the birth certificate, which you can change, whats wrong with that? Well it was your legal sex until last week. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9 The SC seems to have blown Section 9 para(1) out of the water. If you're baiting me you're wasting your time. Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 18:07   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

>> >> No because the GRC is not your legal sex, its a hal way house >> Its >> >> all about the birth certificate, which you can change, whats wrong with that? >> >> Well it was your legal sex until last week. WELL CHANGE YOUR e***** BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!! Argue with the people who draw up the incomplete and hence ambiguous legislation. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 24 Apr 25 at 18:10 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 18:15   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> WELL CHANGE YOUR e***** BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!! You can but it may not have the effect to the extent you think!! Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Apr 25 at 18:15 Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 18:26   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Zero

Because? Reply to this message | Report message

Thu 24 Apr 25 18:51   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Manatee

If nothing else, the above discussion seems to establish that the SC has not provided a solution, and the politicians who "welcome the clarification" are jumping the gun. Even if we take the birth certificate (at birth or as amended) it doesn't solve the problem for 'genuine' trans women does it? They are either going to face men in their single sex space or women in theirs who will probably start demanding to see their birth certificates. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 27 Apr 25 12:20   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - John Boy

Apparrently David Tennant thinks that trans people have become a “political football” in the UK. Precisely. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 27 Apr 25 13:05   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Bromptonaut

>> Apparrently David Tennant thinks that trans people have become a “political football” in the UK. He's spot on. I've already made the point that it's no time since we were shaking our heads about US rednecks and using the loo of your birth sex. Contact in another forum is a transwoman with a Gender Recognition Certificate. Started transition in their teens and I suspect doesn't look masculine. She makes the point that by getting a GRC, which is not a simple process, she entered into a contract with the state that she would be regarded as female for 'all purposes'. The Supreme Court and government's line as expressed so far has driven a coach and horses through that. Something will have to give and I don't think we can assume it will be the Trans community. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 28 Apr 25 08:41   Supreme Court decision - women can't have penis - Kevin

>Apparrently David Tennant thinks that trans people have become a >“political football” in the UK. Is he complaining or celebrating? I assume it is the latter considering that he took the opportunity to stand on stage at a media back-slapping event to tell a female party leader to "shut up" about women's concerns. I can see how he might get a little confused though. He's from Scotland and they have a history of hairy-a***d blokes in skirts up there don't they.? Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 28 Apr 25 at 08:41 Reply to this message | Report message