Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

[motorbiking]

I left the TV with the snooker on. When I walked back in, Politics Live was on. I haven't watched it for years because I no longer follow the news or politics on TV. But just by chance they were having a discussion about the Supreme Court ruling. It was actually pretty good. It should be on iPlayer soon.

Far from clearing things up, this court case might have caused unintended consequences regarding how businesses will respond in practice. A discrimination barrister, who seemed to know their stuff, was saying it will probably mean many fewer single sex toilets etc. Instead they will be converted to gender neutral. This is because, as the law stands, that will be the only way for businesses to make sure they don't get sued by one side or the other. The barrister also discussed the background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and how it was forced on the UK by the European Court of Human Rights and how we will almost certainly end up back in that court again following the ruling.

BBC Two - Politics Live, 22/04/2025

The Supreme Court rules on the definition of a woman, and the local elections.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is no need for fewer single sex toilets. It's up to the provider to decide how access is enforced. If they are happy for trans women to use the women's or ask them to use the mens, then that is up to them. They better be careful how they ask.

I really hope we don't end up with shared loos. Women take longer and go more frequently than men, which his why they are more likely to need to queue.

 

[JohnD]

Seems clear enough to me - trans-men are expected to use public facilities as men under new law: do you not see a problem with this new ruling?

Oh, is that what you expect?

When you asked me your vague question, you did not mention trans people.

I still don't know what you meant. Do you?

 

[Highway Man]

Well, you maintain a 'man is a man' etc. and neglect the inconvenient fact that dna is mixed up in weird ways within some people to the extent they aren't easily put into one category or another. The legal beagles are tying themselves in knots in this attempt to broaden the legal cover for trans-folk - should the law be maintained for the majority of 'normal' people in this country or continue in this attempt to make the law work for everybody?

Transgender people identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex at birth. This is a matter of gender identity, not necessarily a biological sex difference. Why should someone who chooses to think that they are a different gender be so entitled that the rest of us have to cater for their needs. The cost implications of supplying additional toilets to accomodate these people could be quite vast. Then there is the question of where do you draw the line? It becomes very complicated to accomodate facilities just because someone wants to identify as something that they are not.

 

[Lower]

There is no need for fewer single sex toilets. It's up to the provider to decide how access is enforced. If they are happy for trans women to use the women's or ask them to use the mens, then that is up to them. They better be careful how they ask.

I really hope we don't end up with shared loos. Women take longer and go more frequently than men, which his why they are more likely to need to queue.

Plus men p!ss all over the place and its not fair to inflict that on women.

 

[Highway Man]

Plus men p!ss all over the place and its not fair to inflict that on women.

I think transgender men lift up the seat before ****ing so they are quite acceptable in womens circles.

 

[motorbiking]

Seems clear enough to me - trans-men are expected to use public facilities as men under new law: do you not see a problem with this new ruling?

I think you might have that the wrong way around.

Trans man = biological Woman

 

[MNW67]

There is no need for fewer single sex toilets. It's up to the provider to decide how access is enforced. If they are happy for trans women to use the women's or ask them to use the mens, then that is up to them. They better be careful how they ask.

I really hope we don't end up with shared loos. Women take longer and go more frequently than men, which his why they are more likely to need to queue.

I'm still trying to get my head round what solutions might be acceptable to everyone.

Starting with first principles. What is the objection that biological women have to a trans woman (biological man) using their toilets. Obviously, as long as there are separate cubicles. The presenter asked this question on Politics Live but nobody really tried to answer.

 

[Highway Man]

Most ridiculous situation I have ever heard, If a man wants to walk around in a dress and think he is a woman then fine, that's his thing, but why does the law have to be changed to accomodate this?

 

[blup]

I left the TV with the snooker on. When I walked back in, Politics Live was on. I haven't watched it for years because I no longer follow the news or politics on TV. But just by chance they were having a discussion about the Supreme Court ruling. It was actually pretty good. It should be on iPlayer soon.

Far from clearing things up, this court case might have caused unintended consequences regarding how businesses will respond in practice. A discrimination barrister, who seemed to know their stuff, was saying it will probably mean many fewer single sex toilets etc. Instead they will be converted to gender neutral. This is because, as the law stands, that will be the only way for businesses to make sure they don't get sued by one side or the other. The barrister also discussed the background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and how it was forced on the UK by the European Court of Human Rights and how we will almost certainly end up back in that court again following the ruling.

BBC Two - Politics Live, 22/04/2025

The Supreme Court rules on the definition of a woman, and the local elections.

www.bbc.co.uk

People can still apply for a gender recognition certificate and will not be required to disclose their true biological sex as I understand it. Protection from discrimination will still apply. And public and private sector bodies will be left to apply the law as they see fit. Kieth is washing his hands of it, other than changing his tune on what he believes a woman is. The SC decision has done little more than state the bleedin' obvious.

 

[blup]

Most ridiculous situation I have ever heard, If a man wants to walk around in a dress and think he is a woman then fine, that's his thing, but why does the law have to be changed to accomodate this?

It doesn't other than protect him from basic discrimination, but its goes much further than that by assuming discrimination exists unless it is justified. So all women battered wives hostels could still exist, but an organisation like the prison service still has the discretion to transfer trans women into all female prisons, nothing has changed provided they are more careful about the justification.

 

[JohnD]

Then there is the question of where do you draw the line? It becomes very complicated to accomodate facilities just because someone wants to identify as something that they are not.

If I identify as a kitten, I shall consider myself entitled to use a litter tray.

 

[Highway Man]

It doesn't other than protect him from basic discrimination, but its goes much further than that by assuming discrimination exists unless it is justified. So all women battered wives hostels could still exist, but an organisation like the prison service still has the discretion to transfer trans women into all female prisons, nothing has changed provided they are more careful about the justification.

If my wife got sent to prison, which she probably never will. I wouldnt fancy her sharing a cell or the showers with a trans woman. I do not think it is right and sort of makes biological women feel intimidated or uncomfortable.

 

[transam]

Well at least Kier Starmer is no longer confused

In 2918 he was confused because he said trans woman are woman

Scroll on 2025 and he no longer believes trans woman are woman

Well glad he cleared that up
Beggars belief that the UK PM / world leader actually believed other wise ( fruit cake )

At least Trump is not and was not confused

It would appear that sections of starmers party are probably still confused

 

[morqthana]

I said women only

You said women of faith.

Probably higher, and for transitioning women also. Are you suggesting that a woman should transitions should get less care ie what biological men get. It’s an argument that over complicates itself, just provide a care plan based on the evidence.

I'm suggesting exactly that. I'm suggesting we look at the evidence of risks and determine care plans accordingly.

I'm not the one saying (in the absence of ANY such consideration of facts) that it is mad to say that to say refusing a trans woman breast cancer screening is discriminatory.

No I'm questioning whether it should be done in the first place, your argument is predicated on there being no difference between biological sex and gender. That’s how the prisoner got transferred. Nobody thought that there could any adverse consequences and in doing so missed the bleedin’ obvious.

No, my argument is predicated on it not being the case that trans women per se are necessarily a threat to others. A man imprisoned for a non-violent, non-sexual offence is probably not going to become a violent rapist if he transitions. A man who is a violent and/or sex offender is probably likely to remain one if he transitions.

Trans people with or without a GRC can be excluded from single sex services so far as it is for a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", which could be for "reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety".

So if the prison authorities transferred a violent man to a female prison because he'd simply said "I identify as a woman" then I suggest they did not use the provisions in law and did not assess the risk properly. The response to that should be to deal with the people and the mistakes they made, not decide that no trans woman should ever be housed in a female prison.

 

[johnny2007]

Then there is the question of where do you draw the line?

Exactly.
There will always be smartass trying to gain advantage of a situation.
Heterosexual man claiming of being a woman to get in changing rooms, toilets, etc.

So if the prison authorities transferred a violent man to a female prison because he'd simply said "I identify as a woman" then I suggest they did not use the provisions in law and did not assess the risk properly.

All well and good, but these poor people are afraid to lose their job for saying the obvious, so they let a convicted violent rapist join a women prison.

My solution:
If you have a sausage you use male facilities, regardless of anything else you think, wear, look, have implanted, etc.
If you don't have a sausage, you use female facilities.
Then you can identify as anything you like.