Corte che governa la definizione legale di una donna “interpretata male”, dice Lady Hale | Il Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
di DSQ
Corte che governa la definizione legale di una donna “interpretata male”, dice Lady Hale | Il Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
di DSQ
10 commenti
Isn’t she essentially saying that the legal definition isn’t misinterpreted but there’s a solution in gender neutral toilets? That’s probably less useful than the court ruling itself and if this is the calibre of Supreme Court judges then it’s no wonder we are all so confused.
she’s right. the ruling does not say you HAVE to have single sex segregated facilities, it just says you can and if you do you can choose to define that by the way the court ruled the definition of a woman under the equalities act is defined.
you can have gender neutral spaces and still comply.
you can have segregated spaces and allow trans people to use whatever gender facility they want.
the ruling just says that if you choose to segregate on biological sex, then thats legal to do so, you dont HAVE to.
As I understood it the judges were cautious to be seen as lawmaking in their interpretation and were of the opinion that something as complicated as the legal definition of woman should be set in a new act of parliament rather than a court case
>”I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex”
Were any of them gynaecologists?
All the ruling said it is legal to have biological sex segregation, not that you *have* to.
And that is fine.
A women’s rape crisis shelter that caters to just cis women isn’t some abhorrent awful thing
A lesbian event that just wants cis women is welcome to do that
If people disapprove then vote with your feet by not going to those places
The ruling is fair enough, and Supreme Court made the decision professionally and in good faith. They clarified that the term woman means biological women, *but only in the context of The Equality Act*.
However… it’s left so many completely honest trans folk at a loss at which spaces to use. Many of whom completely pass as their chosen gender to the point it would be inappropriate to use their biological gender’s space.
The government now needs to provide guidance here that’s compassionate and fair. We’re already seeing organisations flatly ban transgender people from the spaces when it’s unnecessary to do so.
Imv, I think it’s fair that organisations should have the right to exclude trans people from spaces (if they have an appropriate reason). But it must not be a default, and they must provide alternative separate spaces if it’s practicable to do so.
These people can cry that the Supreme Court ruling is being “misinterpreted”, but the simple truth it’s being interpreted the way it was always going to be. As a cudgel to drive trans people out of public life.
She’s right that “there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos”, but the judgement *does* mean that if you separate your toilets by gender (as most places do), you can’t legally ban men from the women’s toilets if you allow trans women in there.
Courts just need to decide what they mean by trans.
Is this only people who have had surgery? Or does it also include people who just feel like the other gender?
As they should be treated differently.
In my opinion, no matter what the law or anyone says, a trans woman is not a woman. Single-sex spaces exist for biological genders, and that boundary should be respected. If necessary, we already have gender-neutral or disabled facilities that aren’t defined by sex, use those. This is about protecting spaces for the majority, not reshaping everything around a very small minority.
Just for clarity, I have nothing against trans or people who want to identify otherwise just be considerate and use gender neutral spaces it’s really not that deep.