Sonia Gallego
@sonygal.bsky.social
Al Jazeera journalist, Europe-based.
Here’s a summary of the judgment as it may be a little difficult to understand:
supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...
supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...
For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court
supremecourt.uk
April 24, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Here’s a summary of the judgment as it may be a little difficult to understand:
supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...
supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...
April 24, 2025 at 12:48 PM
You can misrepresent the SC decision as much as you wish but it won’t change the fact that the PC of sex in the 2010 EA is biological.
Energy would be better spent on providing safety and security for trans-identifying people not encouraging men to breach the law.
Energy would be better spent on providing safety and security for trans-identifying people not encouraging men to breach the law.
April 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
You can misrepresent the SC decision as much as you wish but it won’t change the fact that the PC of sex in the 2010 EA is biological.
Energy would be better spent on providing safety and security for trans-identifying people not encouraging men to breach the law.
Energy would be better spent on providing safety and security for trans-identifying people not encouraging men to breach the law.
You’ve apparently misunderstood the decision.
If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.
If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.
April 24, 2025 at 11:31 AM
You’ve apparently misunderstood the decision.
If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.
If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.
That would be up to the Scottish Goverment and they’ve accepted the ruling.
April 24, 2025 at 11:30 AM
That would be up to the Scottish Goverment and they’ve accepted the ruling.
Ah, so presenting evidence is now gish galloping?
A bold position but not one that works in court.
A bold position but not one that works in court.
April 22, 2025 at 9:37 PM
Ah, so presenting evidence is now gish galloping?
A bold position but not one that works in court.
A bold position but not one that works in court.
I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers with eyes on billable hours who would relish your prospect.
April 22, 2025 at 9:36 PM
I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers with eyes on billable hours who would relish your prospect.
The movement of women campaigning for their rights is not a hate movement.
The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:
The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:
April 22, 2025 at 9:34 PM
The movement of women campaigning for their rights is not a hate movement.
The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:
The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:
Same could apply to trans activists tbf, who wouldn’t consider this hateful:
April 22, 2025 at 9:32 PM
Same could apply to trans activists tbf, who wouldn’t consider this hateful:
The SC seemed to think so.
The GRA is one thing, the protected characteristic of GR in the 2010 EA is another.
But respecting the PC of GR cannot come at the cost of negating the PC of sex.
We’ve seen what that does from prisons to rape crisis centres, to female sports and women-only awards
The GRA is one thing, the protected characteristic of GR in the 2010 EA is another.
But respecting the PC of GR cannot come at the cost of negating the PC of sex.
We’ve seen what that does from prisons to rape crisis centres, to female sports and women-only awards
April 22, 2025 at 9:06 PM
The SC seemed to think so.
The GRA is one thing, the protected characteristic of GR in the 2010 EA is another.
But respecting the PC of GR cannot come at the cost of negating the PC of sex.
We’ve seen what that does from prisons to rape crisis centres, to female sports and women-only awards
The GRA is one thing, the protected characteristic of GR in the 2010 EA is another.
But respecting the PC of GR cannot come at the cost of negating the PC of sex.
We’ve seen what that does from prisons to rape crisis centres, to female sports and women-only awards
And given the SC ruling, the CoP are now able to be clarified further.
April 22, 2025 at 9:00 PM
And given the SC ruling, the CoP are now able to be clarified further.
Sorry, this is not a question of being ‘hateful’, as you put it.
It’s a question of facts, and the fact remains that men, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are men.
There is no hatred towards men but important factual distinctions that the SC justices recognise.
It’s a question of facts, and the fact remains that men, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are men.
There is no hatred towards men but important factual distinctions that the SC justices recognise.
April 22, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Sorry, this is not a question of being ‘hateful’, as you put it.
It’s a question of facts, and the fact remains that men, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are men.
There is no hatred towards men but important factual distinctions that the SC justices recognise.
It’s a question of facts, and the fact remains that men, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are men.
There is no hatred towards men but important factual distinctions that the SC justices recognise.
…as opposed to those who were telling 51% of the population that their spaces and legal rights didn’t matter?
What’s the word for someone who thinks women - including trans-identifying women - are lesser beings than men?
What’s the word for someone who thinks women - including trans-identifying women - are lesser beings than men?
April 22, 2025 at 8:22 PM
…as opposed to those who were telling 51% of the population that their spaces and legal rights didn’t matter?
What’s the word for someone who thinks women - including trans-identifying women - are lesser beings than men?
What’s the word for someone who thinks women - including trans-identifying women - are lesser beings than men?
…which could be legal.
As the EHRC puts it:
“Sometimes indirect gender reassignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination.”
But this should be tested in court amid the strains on the legal system.
As the EHRC puts it:
“Sometimes indirect gender reassignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination.”
But this should be tested in court amid the strains on the legal system.
April 22, 2025 at 8:19 PM
…which could be legal.
As the EHRC puts it:
“Sometimes indirect gender reassignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination.”
But this should be tested in court amid the strains on the legal system.
As the EHRC puts it:
“Sometimes indirect gender reassignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination.”
But this should be tested in court amid the strains on the legal system.
The best solution for a very tiny, tiny minority of people is unisex spaces which resolve the issue. This was a solution posited by women’s rights activists but gender identity activists disagreed.
If they had that cohort’s best interests at heart, this is what they should campaign for.
If they had that cohort’s best interests at heart, this is what they should campaign for.
April 22, 2025 at 7:46 PM
The best solution for a very tiny, tiny minority of people is unisex spaces which resolve the issue. This was a solution posited by women’s rights activists but gender identity activists disagreed.
If they had that cohort’s best interests at heart, this is what they should campaign for.
If they had that cohort’s best interests at heart, this is what they should campaign for.
Unless it’s a service or a place of employment, which would require separate sex facilities as per 1992 workplace regulations.
Unfortunately Lord Sumption also failed to mention that it could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
It’s a risky *may* that employers would be keen to avoid.
Unfortunately Lord Sumption also failed to mention that it could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
It’s a risky *may* that employers would be keen to avoid.
April 22, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Unless it’s a service or a place of employment, which would require separate sex facilities as per 1992 workplace regulations.
Unfortunately Lord Sumption also failed to mention that it could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
It’s a risky *may* that employers would be keen to avoid.
Unfortunately Lord Sumption also failed to mention that it could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
It’s a risky *may* that employers would be keen to avoid.
She can use the female loo or, if her appearance is so altered that she convincingly appears male, then she can use the men’s facilities.
The Supreme Court judgement explains this:
The Supreme Court judgement explains this:
April 22, 2025 at 6:29 PM
She can use the female loo or, if her appearance is so altered that she convincingly appears male, then she can use the men’s facilities.
The Supreme Court judgement explains this:
The Supreme Court judgement explains this:
This is both hyperbolic and incoherent Owen.
Trans-identifying people are not being driven out of society and their rights are rightly protected, like anyone else with a particular belief system not grounded in material reality.
Trans-identifying people are not being driven out of society and their rights are rightly protected, like anyone else with a particular belief system not grounded in material reality.
April 22, 2025 at 3:41 PM
This is both hyperbolic and incoherent Owen.
Trans-identifying people are not being driven out of society and their rights are rightly protected, like anyone else with a particular belief system not grounded in material reality.
Trans-identifying people are not being driven out of society and their rights are rightly protected, like anyone else with a particular belief system not grounded in material reality.
Please read the Cass review to avoid such an unnecessary scenario.
April 22, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Please read the Cass review to avoid such an unnecessary scenario.
This isn’t the convincing argument you think it is.
Will add it to the list of similarly incoherent responses I’ve received.
Thank you. 🙏
Will add it to the list of similarly incoherent responses I’ve received.
Thank you. 🙏
April 22, 2025 at 3:24 PM
This isn’t the convincing argument you think it is.
Will add it to the list of similarly incoherent responses I’ve received.
Thank you. 🙏
Will add it to the list of similarly incoherent responses I’ve received.
Thank you. 🙏