iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court

Here’s a summary of the judgment as it may be a little difficult to understand: supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...

supremecourt.uk

600

Please go back and read the judgement. supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc...

700

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.

200

You’ve apparently misunderstood the decision. If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.

900

That would be up to the Scottish Goverment and they’ve accepted the ruling.

100

Ah, so presenting evidence is now gish galloping? A bold position but not one that works in court.

000

I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers with eyes on billable hours who would relish your prospect.

000

The movement of women campaigning for their rights is not a hate movement. The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:

000

Umut Özkırımlı @umutozkirimli.bsky.social · 22/04/2025

Same could apply to trans activists tbf, who wouldn’t consider this hateful:

000

Reposted by Sonia Gallego

I’m a small fish here, but those with big platforms need to speak up. A “far-right expert” with 11.8k followers likens the UK to Weimar Germany and calls anyone who defines womanhood on the basis of biological sex a "transphobe". This isn’t analysis—it’s unhinged.

131

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

200

And given the SC ruling, the CoP are now able to be clarified further.

000

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.

000

…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?

000

…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.

100

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.

000

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.

000

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:

000

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.

It makes perfect sense. Transwomen - aka men - are not women. The PM has simple acknowledged what humanity has known for tens of thousands of years. Progress.

Please read the Cass review to avoid such an unnecessary scenario.

100

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. 🙏

100

No contradiction at all… Just like babies can be born with any out of the ordinary development issue, missing limbs etc. glad you’re understanding the basic concepts now. Go well and good luck with everything 👍

110

What do people with DSDs have to do with transgender issues? And please don’t say that sex is spectrum because that’s pseudoscience and the greater majority of trans-identifying people don’t have them

100

They’re women with Swyer Syndrome with female reproductive structures but usually lacking ovaries. They do not constitute a separate sex. What they do have is a rare difference of sex development.

100

You, apparently, weren’t aware that sex is set at fertilisation. But don’t let 6 million years of evidence put you off searching for an answer.

100

Oh I did. Triple, quadrupled etc Spoiler: no storks are involved.

100

They don’t. There’s no such thing as ‘gendered’ organs. They inhabit a body which is either male or female. That is defined at fertilization.

100

Again, you’re deliberately misrepresenting my responses and there’s no way to pursue this conversation as your stance is based on pseudoscience. If you are a ‘trans woman’ it means you’re, technically a man, your body has developed to produce small motile gametes. Dress however you want though.

000

If you’re unable to understand evolution, then that does rather make my responses hard to comprehend. The same is true of creationists so don’t feel too bad about it.

000

Being female is a material reality. A woman with MKRH syndrome is very much a woman. Unlike a man who wears dresses and calls himself a woman. Human beings are either male or female and they cannot change sex. As I’ve exhaustively stated, that doesn’t define personality or ambition.

000

Womanhood is incumbent on being a woman, the material reality of having a body that develops along the lines of producing large gametes, regardless of whether she is fertile. This does not limit who she is, what she does, how she lives. The possibilities for her are endless.

000

You’re welcome to have a differing view. But I’m not going to engage with baseless slandering. Have a good one.

110

If a woman is infertile, it doesn’t make her less of a woman. Being a woman doesn’t limit her from achieving whatever she wants. So why is that retrograde?

000

Not really. It simply being female human being that has reached adulthood. Anything else is a false narrative.

000

Because it is a physical impossibility just as the liver in a male body cannot be a female liver. There is no such thing as a body having opposite sex organs. That is pseudoscience.

100

Sorry, is this your definition of womanhood?

000

The dip was already evident earlier this year but this is quite the slump:

How does this fit in the argument?

000

Can a brain survive in a set of stereotypes? Think about it, please.

100

Please do keep writing out these messages - it only confirms what many have already experienced and employers will be watching this with interest. I’ve taken screen grabs for posterity.

200

Gender is sex stereotypes- that you understand, correct? The brain is part of the body. The body is material. It is not a set of societal constructs.

100