UK Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Are Not And Can't Be Women

[Leblanc 2,494]

1 hour ago, Meruk Holland said:

The thing is that this is the Supreme Court's ruling, so they're the ones deciding to uphold the archaic understanding of the laws that define gender as sex. This was the opportunity to break away from that convention and set precedence, considering that the Equality Act addresses both women and trans as protected classes. They instead decided to uphold the idea that sex is gender, which does not reflect our current reality. If you think that such legal distinction is necessary to avoid confusion, then this ruling is a problem, as it only adds to the confusion with its contradictions.

The women celebrating this ruling are celebrating the idea that trans women are not women, legally. By definition, they are in support of anti-trans bigotry and most, if not all, think that trans shouldn't be a protected class either. Both sides are not worth listening to if one is spreading hateful ideas.

I truly believe that's false. I feel like you don't even realise that you've escalated quite quickly one thing, women wanting there to a legal distinction between a biological woman and a trans woman which is a true statement, to supporting anti trans bigotry. Like with several modern debates these days, the argument gets inflamed by antagonising one side. I'm sure there are plenty anti trans people on that side but to assume every woman that's happy with this result is anti trans gets us no where except in my opinion further away from unity on this subject.

Like im happy with this result because it puts to bed a heated discussion thats done nothing except invite public discourse which has just actively harmed the public standing that trans people had here and im not anti trans and im certainly not a bigot.

Maybe I'm naive and I'm sure you'd probably agree but I see it too often today, I'm sick of seeing people call bigotry and hatred when that's just an escalation turning the dial up on the overall debate. Look the world isn't as radical as some would like it to be but it's not just your world, you've got to share with people who disagree and sometimes no matter how unfair you think it is, you would expect them to deal with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

[LadyxGaGa 3,220]

if jk rowling is celebrating this win it’s anti trans and the fact that ur in neither camp but still upholding ur thinly veiled transphobia is hilarious on a gaga forum 

[Meruk Holland 2,358]

1 minute ago, Leblanc said:

I truly believe that's false. I feel like you don't even realise that you've escalated quite quickly one thing, women wanting there to a legal distinction between a biological woman and a trans woman which is a true statement, to supporting anti trans bigotry. Like with several modern debates these days, the argument gets inflamed by antagonising one side. I'm sure there are plenty anti trans people on that side but to assume every women happy with this result is anti trans gets us no where except in my opinion further away from unity on this subject. Maybe I'm naive and I'm sure you'd probably agree but I see it too often today, I'm sick of seeing people call bigotry and hatred when that's just an escalation turning the dial up on the overall debate. Look the world isn't as radical as some would like it to be but it's not just your world, you've got to share with people who disagree and sometimes no matter how unfair you think it is, you would expect them to deal with it when the shoe is on the other foot.

There's no other conclusion to arrive at in regards to this specific event. The Supreme Court said "trans women aren't women and as such aren't entitled to protection as women" and a group of people celebrate that? It's because they also believe that trans women aren't women, which is a bigoted, ignorant, hateful idea. As in, it is an idea that is rooted in a lack of understanding in science, semantics, and ethics; and to choose not to gain and understanding causes damage to another group of people. By definition, it's ignorant, it's bigoted, and it's hateful. When they espouse that their stance is based on protecting women from "men who identify as women", they are spreading harmful disinformation about what it means to be trans.

At this point, there is no reason to believe that they haven't had the opportunity to learn, as the discourse on trans issues have been going on for over a decade. They choose to ignore those that correct their misguided beliefs, they choose to misappropriate statistics, they choose not to properly research this topic they claim to feel so strongly about. And that's what makes it "hateful".

Sometimes things are called hateful and bigoted because they are, in fact, those things. If you replaced the word "trans" with the word "black", it all seems pretty obvious, right? "The Supreme Court has ruled that black women are not the same as biological women, and thus aren't provided the same protection" "Black women are to be excluded from Women-Only spaces" "We should have a legal distinction between black women and white women, why can't they be equal but not the same?" "We should listen to both sides when a lot of white women are celebrating this win, who am I to say they're wrong?"

[StarstruckIllusion 53,565]

On 4/16/2025 at 10:33 AM, River said:

but yet, they didn't care much to rule that trans men are not men, and why? it's all sexism that TERF idiots don't understand, that even trans women are victims of sexism by men and these TERF bigots help these men to achieve and norture this sexism and hide it behind "saving all women from trans women"

this. notice how no one is talking about it. how trans men never get “transvestigated” online. TERFs literally just gave a huge win to misogyny and they’re too stupid to realize 

[Ilia Malinin 2,879]

20 hours ago, Yasux35 said:

I mean they are not wrong though .

posting this on lady gaga's internet is f**king wild.

[Leblanc 2,494]

18 minutes ago, Meruk Holland said:

There's no other conclusion to arrive at in regards to this specific event. The Supreme Court said "trans women aren't women and as such aren't entitled to protection as women" and a group of people celebrate that? It's because they also believe that trans women aren't women, which is a bigoted, ignorant, hateful idea. As in, it is an idea that is rooted in a lack of understanding in science, semantics, and ethics; and to choose not to gain and understanding causes damage to another group of people. By definition, it's ignorant, it's bigoted, and it's hateful. When they espouse that their stance is based on protecting women from "men who identify as women", they are spreading harmful disinformation about what it means to be trans.

At this point, there is no reason to believe that they haven't had the opportunity to learn, as the discourse on trans issues have been going on for over a decade. They choose to ignore those that correct their misguided beliefs, they choose to misappropriate statistics, they choose not to properly research this topic they claim to feel so strongly about. And that's what makes it "hateful".

Sometimes things are called hateful and bigoted because they are, in fact, those things. If you replaced the word "trans" with the word "black", it all seems pretty obvious, right? "The Supreme Court has ruled that black women are not the same as biological women, and thus aren't provided the same protection" "Black women are to be excluded from Women-Only spaces" "We should have a legal distinction between black women and white women, why can't they be equal but not the same?" "We should listen to both sides when a lot of white women are celebrating this win, who am I to say they're wrong?"

Am I genuinely going crazy or have we fully lost the plot? Trans women are not biological women that is just a true statement, please do not infer any feelings to that statement because it is just a factual statement. And I think the law should make that distinction. That is truly what I think this whole bullshit argument is over. You are never going to get Sue in her late 50's to understand the ever fluctuating terminology that exists in online trans-friendly spaces and quite frankly I don't ascribe any malice to her for not being aware or up to date. That's just what most people are like and it's so easy to forget that. Why on earth can't being trans be its own separate equal status thing, I think most people can get on board with that. This whole issue arose when people asserted 'trans women are women' to people who have always used the word woman interchangeably to the word female. You can't undo a lifetime of people's use of a word. 

[Ilia Malinin 2,879]

21 hours ago, Yasux35 said:

I mean they are not wrong though .

they are wrong, though.  factually, scientifically, morally.  trans women are women, no matter how you slice it.  just like trans men are men.  it is not the fault of us trans people for feeling the way we do.  to deny us our right to exist and say that we are not our gender is not only mentally harmful but physically harmful.  if i were to walk into a women's restroom right now, i would be screamed at and arrested.  just as if a trans woman were to walk into a men's restroom, she would be hate crimed and likely physically harmed.  this law is wrong, you are wrong.  i'm so glad your account was banned so you cannot continue to spread this god-f**king-awful rhetoric.  i hope that if you manage to see this, you will LEARN TO DO SOME RESEARCH.

i hope you have the day you deserve, friend. 

[Ilia Malinin 2,879]

4 minutes ago, Leblanc said:

You are never going to get Sue in her late 50's to understand the ever fluctuating terminology that exists in online trans-friendly spaces

really, because my almost 75 year old grandmother understands basic trans terminology.  i explain it to her, she understands what it means (i.e. top surgery is different contextually to a double mastectomy).  i explain to her why i'm scared, why i feel threatened, and why i don't like leaving the house.  somehow she, and my mid 50s mother, manage to understand what i'm talking about when i talk about trans things.

it's ignorance, they don't want to try to understand.  you can get people to understand trans terminology and issues, it's just a chunk of people DO NOT WANT TO.  because they're bigoted and ignorant, they think it's "shoving it down their throats."

[Meruk Holland 2,358]

24 minutes ago, Leblanc said:

Am I genuinely going crazy or have we fully lost the plot? Trans women are not biological women that is just a true statement, please do not infer any feelings to that statement because it is just a factual statement.

This is not true. In science and in language, biological sex is a social construct, same as gender. What you refer to as "sex" is not Male or Female, its an amalgamation of 5 characteristics: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, secondary sexual characteristics, and genitalia. Using any of these characteristics to singularly define sex results in contradictions and failure. Depending on the amount of intervention a trans woman has gone through, many of them will be more "biologically female" than what many cis woman ever will be without intervention of their own.

As such, the idea of "Biological sex" is flawed and using it as a legal basis will only increase confusion and contradictions. Some trans women are biological women, and some cis women aren't biological women.

37 minutes ago, Leblanc said:

And I think the law should make that distinction. That is truly what I think this whole bullshit argument is over. You are never going to get Sue in her late 50's to understand the ever fluctuating terminology that exists in online trans-friendly spaces and quite frankly I don't ascribe any malice to her for not being aware or up to date. That's just what most people are like and it's so easy to forget that. Why on earth can't being trans be its own separate equal status thing, I think most people can get on board with that. This whole issue arose when people asserted 'trans women are women' to people who have always used the word woman interchangeably to the word female. You can't undo a lifetime of people's use of a word. 

You are framing this as some kind of semantic argument, that 50-year-old Sue is just annoyed about her vocabulary is being called outdated. But what they're celebrating is trans women being denied womanhood. Ya know, the one thing they want, to be recognized as the gender they're transitioning into? All because, what, some cis women are uncomfortable sharing changing rooms and bathrooms with the unclean and degenerate trans women? Don't forget that, that's what they're celebrating, the the law is saying Trans Women aren't Women. Because if you think that those of us who care about trans issues aren't reading past the headline, 50-year-old Sue definitely isn't. She just sees "Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Can’t Be Defined as Women" and she celebrates? It's because she's already bought into anti-trans ideas. 

Again, try replacing trans with black and see how it sounds. "This whole issue arose when people asserted 'black women are women' to people who have always used the word woman interchangeable to the term 'white female'"

The fact that she's had a lifetime of using a word in a way that is now deemed inaccurate means that it's understandable why she continues to use it inaccurately, it doesn't make it right that she continues to do so. Once she's brought to attention that it's inaccurate, it is up to her to evolve or remain ignorant (even if it means being harmful, directly or indirectly).

[LOVEDRUG 11,269]

19 hours ago, PartySick said:

Oh for sure, the court's ruling is useless and definitely rooted in a trend of backwards hate. Like "great, the court says 'trans women aren't women', what do we do with that knowledge?"

There's no reason for a court to be ruling on something like this to begin with, let alone for them to come to such a catastrophically stupid decision.

I'm just curious what Leblanc's line of thinking is, that's all.

I absolutely agree that this is an objectively stupid decision, one which contradicts a lot of UK law.

But it's reasonable for the Supreme Court to be making a judgement on such a matter. The sole political responsibility of the UK Supreme Court is to interpret and define terms used in legislation. The problem is that in the Equality Act (which came prior to gender self-identification legislation) it isn't made clear at all whether or not women/men refers to biological sex or gender. One of the few remaining responsibilities the court has is ruling on things like this (ie. interpreting what vague legislation means).

As I say though, I do agree that it's a stupid decision, not least because the ruling explicitly refers to biological sex as being binary on the basis of 'shared biology' which seems to completely gloss over the existence of intersex people.

[phantasmas 12,372]

23 hours ago, Yasux35 said:

I mean they are not wrong though .

 

Mod note: this user is banned but feel free to drag the corpse of their account with this post.

[whoresup 3,429]

I live in the UK and want to provide some more context. 

Under the UK Equality Act 2010 a trans person who has transitioned can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate meaning that under the law they could legally change their gender, have their gender changed on their birth certificate, passport, etc. They are already extremely difficult to get and many trans people wait years for this recognition. 

This new ruling says that trans women will not be legally classed as a woman even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Not only has this ruling put the lives and safety of trans women at risk, it also denies their very existence. 

If you look on social media in the UK right now there is disgusting transphobic vitriol everywhere and it seems it’s now socially acceptable to be extremely hateful to a vulnerable and marginalised group. 

Trans rights are human rights. Make no mistake, this will not end at trans rights. Other LGBTQ+ rights will be in the firing line, women’s rights will be in the firing line, this is just the beginning.

[Grim 2,266]

Interested to know if they'd still be so adamant about the "biological gender" if trans men started using women's spaces again

 

[Leblanc 2,494]

4 hours ago, Carl Grimes said:

really, because my almost 75 year old grandmother understands basic trans terminology.  i explain it to her, she understands what it means (i.e. top surgery is different contextually to a double mastectomy).  i explain to her why i'm scared, why i feel threatened, and why i don't like leaving the house.  somehow she, and my mid 50s mother, manage to understand what i'm talking about when i talk about trans things.

it's ignorance, they don't want to try to understand.  you can get people to understand trans terminology and issues, it's just a chunk of people DO NOT WANT TO.  because they're bigoted and ignorant, they think it's "shoving it down their throats."

Because she had you, you walked her through it and she loves you so she is willing to spend the time figuring it out for you. My brother was homophobic until I came out, because he loved me he changed his mind, that's not a strange concept. When I mentioned Sue I'm talking about the person who doesn't have anything tangible to bring them to understanding. Unfortunately ignorance isn't a crime and lots of people are ignorant about lots of things including me and you. That's just life, if someone came up to you right now claiming you're hateful because you're not read up on the struggle of their small nation and its people what would you do?

[Leblanc 2,494]

3 hours ago, Meruk Holland said:

This is not true. In science and in language, biological sex is a social construct, same as gender. What you refer to as "sex" is not Male or Female, its an amalgamation of 5 characteristics: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, secondary sexual characteristics, and genitalia. Using any of these characteristics to singularly define sex results in contradictions and failure. Depending on the amount of intervention a trans woman has gone through, many of them will be more "biologically female" than what many cis woman ever will be without intervention of their own.

As such, the idea of "Biological sex" is flawed and using it as a legal basis will only increase confusion and contradictions. Some trans women are biological women, and some cis women aren't biological women.

You are framing this as some kind of semantic argument, that 50-year-old Sue is just annoyed about her vocabulary is being called outdated. But what they're celebrating is trans women being denied womanhood. Ya know, the one thing they want, to be recognized as the gender they're transitioning into? All because, what, some cis women are uncomfortable sharing changing rooms and bathrooms with the unclean and degenerate trans women? Don't forget that, that's what they're celebrating, the the law is saying Trans Women aren't Women. Because if you think that those of us who care about trans issues aren't reading past the headline, 50-year-old Sue definitely isn't. She just sees "Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Can’t Be Defined as Women" and she celebrates? It's because she's already bought into anti-trans ideas. 

Again, try replacing trans with black and see how it sounds. "This whole issue arose when people asserted 'black women are women' to people who have always used the word woman interchangeable to the term 'white female'"

The fact that she's had a lifetime of using a word in a way that is now deemed inaccurate means that it's understandable why she continues to use it inaccurately, it doesn't make it right that she continues to do so. Once she's brought to attention that it's inaccurate, it is up to her to evolve or remain ignorant (even if it means being harmful, directly or indirectly).

I genuinely have to check out of this debate because you just confirmed my question, I think we fully have lost the plot. I can't believe in good faith you are trying to say trans women are somehow more biologically female than a biological female. And that biological sex is a social construct. Please go out and ask a 1000 people what they mean when they refer to biological sex and when you find that person rhat answers with your answer call me because most people on this earth are going to say its male or female with potential asterisk for intersex depending on who you ask. How when most people exist understanding the subject like this can you want the law to refer to something else? I genuinely am flabbergasted.