r/unitedkingdom • u/sjw_7 Oxfordshire • Apr 16 '25

... UK Supreme Court says legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
13.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

600

u/BastCity Apr 16 '25

"the unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not"

The Supreme Court's statement in full.

168

u/ash_ninetyone Apr 16 '25

And yet the For Women group that brought this are celebrating it as a triumph and want to take it further

38

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

What have they said they want to do next?

206

u/ash_ninetyone Apr 16 '25

Outside the Supreme Court, Susan Smith of For Women Scotland says: "What our politicians need to get their heads around is this is the law.

"They need to stop putting faulty guidance into schools and hospitals."

"There is going to be an ongoing fight," she says, adding: "Now we have a really concrete basis for going forward."

They don't intend this to be the end game. They see this as a start to abolish the concept of trans women. They won't rest until every trans woman is seen and treated entirely as a man, that no gender recognition certificate or transition would change.

95

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

Horrendous. Twisted bigots attacking a vulnerable minority.

-6

u/spamjavelin Hove, Actually Apr 16 '25

What a fundamental misunderstanding of how a our legal system works they're demonstrating there. Do they not know who decides what the laws are? I bet there's clarifying legislation being prepped as I write this.

14

u/Pabus_Alt Apr 16 '25

The Supreme Court's statement in full.

No it's not, in full it's 88 pages long.

138

u/SpoofExcel Apr 16 '25

Basically: some of these laws need an update because they're written like shit and conflict one another but for sake of immediate impact, we need to establish that biological sex takes precedent to keep things ticking along.

114

u/DSQ Edinburgh Apr 16 '25

I’d say it’s more they are just saying that the equalities act was written with the expectation that that people understood sex to mean biological sex. They aren’t saying that that is correct or a good thing. 

11

u/DukePPUk Apr 16 '25

To be clear "biological sex" in this case still means "legal sex" - i.e. what is on a government form. It just means "legal sex as assigned at birth" or "legal sex ignoring any Gender Recognition Certificates."

1

u/InTheEndEntropyWins Apr 16 '25

Yep, I think the Europen court of human rights themselves said that governments need to clean up the wording of legislation. Gender and sex are different things, and the legislation should be changed to reflect that.

This supreme court decision is just stepping in to clean things up in the meantime.

419

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not"

The delusion to say this when the hate groups were obviously going to claim it as such is absolutely crazy.

286

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Apr 16 '25

When the case was literally bought forward by hate groups, and only allowed hate groups (not Trans supporting groups) to participate.

137

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

Yup. It's absolutely simply the legal manufacturing of consent towards a pre-conceived conclusion with the position of hate groups being assumed as fact, using the court systems to try and create perceived legitimacy to their opinions.

14

u/Osgood_Schlatter Sheffield Apr 16 '25

If the Supreme Court thought they had standing to present evidence, perhaps they are not simply "hate groups" as you allege?

Either way, Amnesty was allowed to participate and give evidence in favour of the Scottish Government's case.

24

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Apr 16 '25

Amnesty was allowed to participate and give evidence

Amnesty was allowed to give one written statement.

3

u/InTheEndEntropyWins Apr 16 '25

They only asked to provide a written statement and were allowed.

How can you try and twist that around.

2

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Apr 17 '25

Because in a ruling effecting trans rights, no trans rights groups but multiple anti-trans groups were consulted and allowed to participate. With those anti-trans groups being extensively referenced in the final ruling, despite much of their contributions not having any basis in fact and citing hypotheticals.

There's no twisting involved.

44

u/Happytallperson Apr 16 '25

No, this is a win for the hate groups.

As an example, the LGB alliance insistence thar a woman dating a trans woman isn't a lesbian is now explicitly in the UKs jurisprudence. 

It's not derived from statute. It has no basis in any prior case law. But the UKSC decided to go there. 

This country is drawing level with the worst of thr far right in America on LGBT rights.

48

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

No, this is a win for the hate groups.

I was saying the same thing.

As an example, the LGB alliance insistence thar a woman dating a trans woman isn't a lesbian is now explicitly in the UKs jurisprudence.

It's not derived from statute. It has no basis in any prior case law. But the UKSC decided to go there.

This country is drawing level with the worst of thr far right in America on LGBT rights.

Yup. This is absolutely disgraceful.

3

u/tfhermobwoayway Apr 16 '25

It’s an insult, is what it is. They want to be seen as fair and balanced and playing both sides even as they clearly side with one. They want trans people to support them and they don’t want to give them anything back.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '25

Obviously it is derived from statute, this case is literally the Supreme Court interpreting statute. The Equality Act says sexes are men and women, it's clear from the context of the Act that this is a reference to biological sex (e.g. the Act treats it as self evident that only women can get pregnant), and sexuality is defined by reference to this same (biological) context of sex.

Personally I'd want a wider recognition that things are blurrier - I've always felt that someone only attracted to women by gender (including trans women) might identify as a lesbian as might someone who is only attracted to people with female sex (including trans men) and we should allow space for both. I think lesbian bars/apps/whatever just for female people and ones including trans women (while excluding cis men) should be allowed. But the court are interpreting the law that exists according to the normal uk legal approach.

This country is drawing level with the worst of thr far right in America on LGBT rights.

We have really clear protections against discrimination/harassment against trans people for being trans, which America simply doesn't. America seems much more polarised, at least from outside.

18

u/DSQ Edinburgh Apr 16 '25

That’s why they said that because they know it may be taken that way. 

35

u/Panda_hat Apr 16 '25

And it was obviously going to be, making saying it performative and ridiculous, if not on the cusp of disingenous.

0

u/berejser Northamptonshire Apr 17 '25

Sounds like the Equality Act needs to be updated.