UK U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Do Not Meet Legal Definition of Women Under Equality Act - The UK Supreme Court says YWNBAW! (although the trans identity is still a protected characteristic)

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Featured on Apr 17, 2025 by Null: U.K. Supreme Court declares: You will NEVER be a Woman.
Article | Archive
The New York Times. Published: 16 April 2025

U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Do Not Meet Legal Definition of Women Under Equality Act​

Britain’s Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether trans women can be defined as female under a British law that aims to protect against discrimination.

The Supreme Court in Britain ruled on Wednesday that trans women do not fall within the legal definition of women under the country’s equality legislation.

The deputy president of the court, Lord Hodge, said in a summary of the decision: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex.”

However, he added: “We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.” He said the ruling “does not cause disadvantage to trans people” because they have protections under anti-discrimination and equality laws.

The landmark judgment follows a yearslong legal battle over whether trans women can be regarded as female under the 2010 law, which aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, race and other protected characteristics.

The decision was highly anticipated because it could have potentially far-reaching consequences for how the law is applied to single sex spaces, equal pay claims and maternity policies as well as to some of the rights available to transgender people in Britain.

BBC live reporting; https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
0.webp
1.webp 2.webp 3.webp 4.webp

Also, sex is binary:
5.webp 6.webp

👀
single-sex-spaces.webp

Related:
JK Rowling, the Queen of TERF Island who helped fund this lawsuit, is celebrating.
Queen-of-TERF-Island.webp GosUamSXUAAWcMW.webp
And the troons are melting down even more than usual over her. See:
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21120381
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21129887
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/u-k-to...women-under-equality-act.217313/post-21135630
a.webp b.webp c.webp d.webp e.webp
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Ripstart Reginald, Enzo, Yellow Rose Of Texas and 601 others
Click to expand...
How does that affect things like GRCs? Could we see anything good come from this, new challenges to the insanity etc? What would the key things to attack via targeted lawsuits?
Click to expand...
Not sure why I can't quote @Otterly properly.

The GRA was enacted to address a specific issue (the inability of trans people to marry in their 'acquired sex'). Since the legalisation and equalisation of gay marriage, there's no need for it - the judgement today essentially affirms that a GRC doesn't offer any additional benefits, and the gender reassignment protections in the EA2010 apply to anyone undergoing or intending to undergo gender reassignment irrespective of documentation.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, mama Lazarou, Elim Garak and 28 others
Ugandan discussions said:
Not sure why I can't quote @Otterly properly.
Click to expand...
Normally it's a post size thing, you can highlight a section of the post to quote or reply to that but it's not working for me either.

So instead it's just the old @Otterly. On which topic regarding lawsuits need filing tomorrow there should be freedom of information acts going to everywhere obliged to reply to them confirming what plans they have made in the wake of the ruling to change their current guidelines, especially those that have ever had Stonewall in or been on its champions thing. So BBC, NHS, police, most councils and schools. Any that have not even began to plan for the meetings they need to have are knowingly flouting the rules and as such breaking the law.

None of which will matter but that's the starting point and I suspect some groups have the requests ready to go.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, Dolly Brooks, GloJojo and 6 others
Overly Serious said:
Well this is probably better than the court ruling trans-identifying men are women. But the court also went out of its way to make clear that trans is still a protected category in UK law. Why should it not be? Because it's not an intrinsic thing but a behaviour. There's no basis for the "woman's brain in a man's body" conception. There's no inherent attribute to be discriminated against. Being trans is a choice. Protected characteristics in UK law are supposed to be just that - actual characteristics. If you're a particular skin colour, disability, whatever, that's not something you choose to do and therefore in UK law something you are protected from being judged on. But this ruling is based on the idea that trans behaviour is similarly something you don't choose. That's wrong.
Click to expand...

To be fair, homosexuality is a behavior as well. There's no real way to define "gay" except as someone who is characterized by repeated engagement in certain acts. When we're talking about the law, it is very difficult to litigate rights and privileges for people who "are" gay because it's often just a matter of someone saying they are. The way to deal with this in law is to litigate about acts rather than people. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Okay, that act is now legal. Want protection from violence? Okay, now assault is aggravated if it is motivated by someone thinking you are gay. No "you get to do this just cos you're gay", you make laws for the things only gay people would want to do - but straight people can also marry someone of the same sex, if they wanted, because the law concerns the act, not the state of "being" gay.

Of course, this doesn't work when you start trying to make rules and privileges based on a PERSON and what that person says they are. This is why there are very few "gay" scholarships and grants, for example, that depend on the person BEING gay, because you can just fucking say that, they aren't going to demand a picture of you with a dick in your mouth. So most of these things instead fund "LGBTQIA+ research" or "LBGT drama" so the product is the criterion for the money, not the person doing it.

This is where all this shit went wrong with trannies. There is no real tranny 'act' that wasn't already protected. Being a fridge in a dress is already protected under discrimination for non-conformism, or harassment or assault for the perception of homosexuality. Trying to litigate "gender identity" runs into exactly the same problems as trying to litigate the state of being gay while just standing around, it doesn't work because it's not provable and it's not an action.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Moosebonker, starbies, The Crescent King and 42 others
You can’t point at JKR and say she’s always been ‘far right’ - she’s pretty lefty in most stuff and so not easily dismissed.
Click to expand...
Yep, for sure I don't consider JKR a natural ally - it actually feels a bit like she hates me and my ilk. Some people on the right will constantly bring up her lefty, woke past.

But personally I'm very willing to put all that aside to confront the troon menace. This is a day of joy and we should all celebrate. We can get back to arguing about making Hermione black when this is all sorted.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, Luna Tick, PetiteFeet and 41 others
Disdainer of the Plebs said:
Right…. So legally, you will never be a woman, but if someone says that out loud, it’s off to the slammer for discrimination. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a bit wonky in that regard. I think if you said to a tranny: "Legally, you are not considered a woman" versus something like "You're a tranny" then they could try and prove that you used hate speech or some silly shit.

If it went higher than a lower court? There's legal precedent now that you are speaking the legal, biological truth. Or at least I hope so. Knowing our justice system, it'll only be hate speech if you're white and straight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millais, Elim Garak, Not a bee and 10 others
Disdainer of the Plebs said:
Right…. So legally, you will never be a woman, but if someone says that out loud, it’s off to the slammer for hate speech speaking against a first class citizen. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
The courts have already established that so-called gender-critical statements (a trans woman is a man, for instance) are protected beliefs, so while the police can and will attempt to arrest you for such things, they're over-stepping their authority and you are most likely to prevail in court. At least until they bring in another round of "shut the fuck up, CHUD" legislation.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: millais, Elim Garak, line drying and 17 others
FuckedOffToff said:
Apologies from all of Labour, please. Our foreign secretary is a disgrace, and a fucking idiotView attachment 7228081
Click to expand...
As are our culture, transport and education secretaries.
1744807447481.webp
1744807470775.webp
1744807487079.webp

As regards Lammy let's not forget he's called Trump a fascist and a KKK sympathiser. Want to see Lammy having a laugh with Donald?

1744807700665.webp

What's it the Left like to say? If there's one Nazi at a table with four people there's four Nazis?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: mama Lazarou, Elim Garak, ComatoseShapeshifter and 28 others
Temperance said:
The salt mines are open for business (sort by "Latest", if needed):
Click to expand...
The crazy and awful thing is that there are tweets in there that would fall u det the uk definition of hate speech - the one about burning down JKRs house for example. Let’s take that one. Someone was prosecuted within a few days of tweeting that they wouldn’t be bothered if migrant hotels all burned down.
Why was that lady prosecuted and this Troon will not be? If one is an actionable threat or hate speech the other is - I’d argue the one directed at JKR MORE so because it’s a named individuals address, rather than a nebulous ‘burn the lot down for all I care.’
Two tier policing? Perish the thought!
I hope Jo is celebrating with a bottle of something obscenely expensive and scrolling twitter with a hearty chuckle
Disdainer of the Plebs said:
Right…. So legally, you will never be a woman, but if someone says that out loud, it’s off to the slammer for hate speech speaking against a first class citizen. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
Well let’s see. That’s why I was asking about lawsuits ready to roll. What can be gone back over if the current definition of woman has always been the case?
@FuckedOffToff ngl tear in the eye at that. Great day for women’s rights and solidarity. I feel quite emotional.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: PetiteFeet, Vivien, A Parroting Puppet and 48 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back