"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. Lord Hodge, Supreme Court
They went on to add, "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,"
But sod that, this is GAG, so what do you think? Did they get it right? Is it a victory of one group over another? Are you surprised a socialist country concluded this?
The UK Supreme Court has defined a woman. Do you agree?
Actually, without taking sides in any way, in spite of some particular groups claiming this to be a victory, the UK Supreme Court's definition of a woman proves to be plain common sense.
This is a very sensitive topic, I know: what about people feeling they belong to another gender than the one they were born with? What about people born without doctors able to tell for sure their real gender? What about people born with an extra X or Y chromosome? The variety of such cases is compelling.
I have a sincere sympathy for all those people, which does not diminish the truth about the definition of a woman. I know about the courage, the determination and motivations required, for a person not feeling well with their physical gender organs, to go through the whole process of gender change. A guy wishing to become a woman will still always know what gender (s) he had originally, and thus, in my opinion, the problem remains first of all psychological.
Not being a jurist, I can still imagine that the general definition should allow case sensitive exceptions. All in all, what harm is done to accept a trans woman to be called officially a woman in daily life? Let's not emit too quickly any judgment.
Smacks of anti-trans terminology to me. Trumpists have been droning on with words similar to this for near a decade now. Genetically speaking opposite ends of the spectrum occur and so does every degree between them. Definitions such as this seem as if they want to ignore real world genetics, people are born with ambiguous genitalia, it's a fact whether you like it or not. Hormone levels occur in all sorts of combinations due to a person;s genetic makeup, a little less testosterone for this guy, a little more for that girl and maybe they seem a little different than what you might anticipate. This WILL result in people that have both sex organs or are "ambiguous". It's scientific, observable, real world fact. Now what it really comes down to after establishing reality is, what drives them to make this pronouncement? What do they intend to try to impose on people using it?
There are people with ambiguous physical gender but these are extremely rare. If it is OK for people to decide their own gender then clearly people can decide their own race.
I'm guessing they mean, by default, there are transwomen, people who are not biological women. People who define themselves as women, but were not born as such, petition the court to be recognized as such, legally.
They're simply talking about a "legal" definition, which is a narrow one. You could be a biological "man," but a transwoman. I get what that means.
There is a process that has to occur for a biological man to become a "legal" woman. But that former man is not a biological woman. A legal woman, yes. But not a biological one. This also helps transwomen who do not choose to take hormone replacement therapy or have operations to change physical or genital status.
On every document, passport, driver's license, etc., that transwoman can legally check FEMALE. But their birth record would retain their initial biological status, which is how they were born. There would be an update on the birth certificate to indicate the new legal status.
This would be done for statistical, demographic records and makes sense.
How you're born is one thing. How you think of yourself and choose to live your life is something else. This supports both ideas.
@beefcakebradybatson Nobody's outlawing anything with this legal definition stuff. It's not illegal to be trans, pans, spans or anything. The courts are defining what a biological woman is. That does not preclude anyone being a LEGAL woman.
Handsome is a subjective state that depends on the eyes of the beholder. Cowboy is simply a job. Black is a slippery position too. There have been people who've called themselves black who have been LEGALLY Caucasian. U see how all these naming situations are not cut and dried.
Well, dudes in their 70's (namely Yours Truly) don't get hit on unless they're objectively handsome. I had relatives who were likely lighter-skinned than you (my gorgeous Aunt Violet Turner, to name one) who were regarded "black" because of America's inane hypodescent law, i. e. one drop of black blood makes one African American.
I feel like women's rights in the UK has become a joke. We try and speak up and we are told to shut up and that we are bigots and its no surprise but its from men.
It's not okay to have box braids because I'm a white woman who doesn't understand black woman's culture but it's totally okay for a man to put on a wig and a dress and say they're a woman when they haven't experienced what it is to truly be a woman because if they did I'm sure they'd soon change there minds. Woke culture is always contradicting it's self.
Woman's rights but not if it has to do with Muslim grooming gangs or men using female spaces.
I've never heard people get upset when they discuss what a man is no ones coming for men's safe spaces.
Do you remember them flims from the early 2000s were the man and women would switch body's and the man living as a woman ended up thinking it was great at first because he got to do all the prevy things he wanted but then learnt the reality of being a woman is much harder than they first thought.
No, it's a disgrace! There's a law that allows people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. That should be the end of it! All societies, including single-sex environments must have mechanisms to get rid of disruptive people already, so why aren't those enough? Hunting societies presumably don't have to accept vegans!
I thought cis women should flood TERF groups with obnoxious people, to see how they would deal with them, but then I realized they were already 100% of the membership.
Kinda silly, and also a little troubling that there needs to be a Supreme Court decision to define what societies have known since the Garden of Eden, but hey, it's a step in the right direction at least.
I mean, kind of. The British government is still very much on my list because they love killing children like Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Indi Gregory because they've somehow managed to convince themselves that they know and want what's best for a child more and better than his or her own parents. So as far as I'm concerned, this court is still far from credible and legitimate at this point.
No, I am not surprised at all. The Oxford English Dictionary - the Guardian of the English Language - agrees with them. Per the OED definition of "female".
"This refers to an individual of the sex that typically can bear young or produce eggs."
Since women are adult female humans, a woman can "typically can bear young or produce eggs". An M2F transgendered woman cannot do those things.
One of the wonderful things about science and Nature is that they really don't give a shit what we think or what our "social constructs" and other horseshit like that is.
And, ideally, the law functions in a similar fashion. That's what the UK Supreme Court has done.
Yeah they got it right. It's pretty simple. XX chromosomes or XY. Cock and balls or a pussy and uterus.
Surgically modified and synthetically drugged up fakes do not qualify as the real thing. They are something else. Trans women and trans men? Whatever. Pick a label. Do whatever you want. I couldn't care less. But pretending to be another gender doesn't mean you're really a different gender any more than I can put on a Halloween costume and become Batman.
Same with all the rest of this gender insecurity bullshit. Last time I did an internet search, the Medicine. net website listed 72 "identified" genders. Fuck this insanity. Believe you're a half giraffe gay chihuahua for all I care. Just shut up about it. It's an identity you've chosen, not your gender. I'm not playing along with your fantasy pronoun bullshit.
I have to say, it's good to see the UK isn't so far gone that it will ignore biological facts for political ideology... completely.
The thing I think that's changing the most though is the council of Karins from the political HR department are starting to figure out this "chicks with dicks" shit is not helping them dominate shit... because vagina and because of reality.
I could easily launch off on a rant from here about feminists making the jump from 'fuck the patriarchy' to "let's make men more valuable than us simply because they claim to be women." I will contain that urge for that rant right now... but feel the sentiment I have for it.
The fact that this even required a court ruling is a sign of how crazy the world has become in recent years. It's like the highest court in the land having to rule on whether the world is round or flat.
I don't care about the definition; women should lose their privileges. There should be no more women-only sports categories, no more women-only prisons, no more women-only bathrooms, and women should be forced into military service. This is how real gender equality will be achieved.
I think... that no courts are needed to ''define'' the obvious.
Also: 'courts' are not the legislative side of a cultural system, but they are meant to settle individual disputes and to apply the present rules as they are applicable. They are ''judicial''.
For a ''definition'' it would require the 'legislative force'' to set certain boundaries.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
12 d
No one denied this though, transman / transwoman is their own thing.
No one was pretending trans was 100% biological male or female, we were saying yes you are born male or female though by saying “I’m transgender ____”, you are allowed to be identified and heard as such.
1
1 Reply
Opinion Owner
12 d
Male, Female, Trans. Intergender exists where one person gets to pick the gender they correspond with so clearly yes you have biological, though you can select just put Transgender M or F to tell everyone “I’m not biological”, still works within this definition.
I'm not informed of the reach of this decision, the content of this act etc. Hmm UK, a socialist country? It looks like you're playing with the political fears of the stereotypical US GaG member. Does that bait work, so far?
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
13 d
I will just stick to the belief women aren’t born with penises
It says something when it took a Supreme Court decision to recognize the insanity and that the government had to be forced to comply. It should have never come to that in the first place.
11.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yes, legally they are right.
But lets be clear, so called "trans folk" are a minority within a minority. They are far down the list of minority issues that need to be dealt with first.
Makes sense as a clarification ruling and it's not surprising. You're hardly going to get conflicting opinions on this here of all places especially considering the general demographics lol
It's pretty sad that you need a supreme court ruling to define "woman". I wouldn't recognize the ruling if it identified trans people as women. They are not. They are perverts.
Basically they reaffirmed that biology is still a legitimate science. Something that people capable of critical thinking and capable of using common sense knew all along.
I get paid more than $100 to $500 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $20k from this without having online working skills. Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site... Here is I started. ————➤ Www.Earn54. COM
This has to be a rare case of common sense in the Judiciary, with it reinforcing that the Biological Definition of a Woman is the only one that matters in Law, not what the Woke Mob thinks is the Definition of a Woman.
@alice55 So... There is this British YouTuber Christine Grace Smith I have just found a video of on this very topic. According to Her, this definition was basically needed in order to ban "trans" women from ladies' bathrooms, female prisons and female sports. Pretty important issues, given the prison culture of sexual violence that used to backfire on biological women heavily when male criminals in women's clothing were allowed in female prisons, as well as the fact that ladies' bathrooms are perfect hunting grounds for male rapists in women's clothing and a few significant incidents with the recent Olympics when some distinguished female athletes were severely hurt by male athletes in women's clothing.
wow. the surpreme court ruled to use words according to what they actually mean and not according to what you feel about them. anything else would have been complete nonsense.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
