UK Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman as referring to biological sex

I feel very sad. My sister in law is a trans woman and this is a very dark day for her and her kin 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵

i also feel really sad about it. i hope trans people know that they have a lot of people supporting them who totally disagree with things like this🩷

My view: the judgment made it clear that the definition of woman should not be expanded, but that trans people remained protected from discrimination through their gender-based rights. So I don’t believe this erodes any of their existing rights (whereas expanding the definition of women would erode biological women’s sex-based rights). So I think the judgment is fair.

Biological sex is largely determined at birth, gender is influenced by societal norms and individual self-perception. Language and societal norms are ever evolving, and so is the human race although some seem to be stuck in Medieval times.

I think cases like Isla Bryson and the recent nhs case are why it’s so important to have safeguards in place. The fact that trans women are able to do police searches on women without letting them know first seems wrong. There’s also the issue of sport. At the same time we need to also be inclusive but there needs to be a balanced approach.

I agree with be ruling. It is my belief that the biological functions of a woman is a fundamental part of what makes us women, something that will never be the lived experience of a trans woman. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support rights for trans people, and I hate the argument that if you don’t support EVERY proposed right for trans people then you are transphobic. I think it’s okay to defend aspects of both sides but I feel a lot of people see this as a black and white issue.

@Hollie so how do you feel about people assigned female at birth that don’t have the “biological functions of a woman”? Such as women born without wombs, or those that are infertile? Or those that are intersex? Genuine question.

@Donna Woods A woman without a womb is still a woman. The same if she was infertile or intersex. Intersex people are still either male or female, they aren’t two genders combined. Our genders are determined at conception, rather than assigned by the doctor. The sperm that meets the egg decides the gender. If a woman had her breasts removed, she would still be a woman. It’s written in our DNA and can’t be replicated.

@Ling~Ling No. You’re talking about sex. I’m talking about gender. Gender is assigned at birth based on body parts that can be seen. It is not the same as biological sex. Also, I was asking for Hollies opinion to expand upon what she was saying. I don’t believe those things in the slightest. Especially as someone who has a diagnosis of infertility and friend who was born without a womb.

@Donna Woods A biological female would have female reproductive parts. What’s the difference between biological sex and gender?

@Ling~Ling one is based on DNA and reproductive organs/hormones (sex) and the other is social construct (gender). Also, not all biological females are bone with reproductive organs. But typically, biological females are born with vaginas.

@Donna Woods I didn’t mean to reply in place of another person, I thought it was an open conversation. Feel free to ignore my post. I said that a woman without a womb is still a woman, the same with infertility. You’re not less of a woman for not having these things.

@Ling~Ling My reply was to another comment that said she believes “biological functions is a fundamental part of what makes us women”, my questions were relating to that comment and asking for an expansion on this belief and where she stands with women that don’t fit that criteria. I wholeheartedly agree. I have a diagnosis of infertility. And a friend who was born without a womb. My best friend doesn’t have periods due to severe PCOS. I don’t think that makes any of us any less of a woman. I also think that trans women are women.

The only time biological sex should matter is at the doctors office. Otherwise I do not understand the need to be so rigid. It takes nothing away from my womanhood to acknowledge a biological man as a woman. Many biological woman are unable to perform "biological woman functions" like conceive a child, give birth or have periods. Is calling them women taking away from what it means to be a "biological woman"?

@Donna Woods as @Ling~Ling mentioned above, a woman without a womb or who is infertile is still a woman. It is my view that the legal definition of a woman should be determined by sex and not gender, the latter of which as you said is a social construct. This is my opinion and I understand it is not the ruling that many trans people had hoped for. I also know that there are trans people who agree with the argument that they are not legally “women”, so who’s to say who is right and who is wrong?

@Donna Woods female biology encompasses far more than just sexual and reproductive organs - women are women at the cellular level, it’s part of our DNA. There are very significant physiological differences between men and women far beyond reproductive organs, and our healthcare is unfortunately still far behind men’s as a result. Recognising our differences is essential to reaching equality for this reason alone.