Overturn the UK's New Legal Definition of a Woman
Overturn the UK's New Legal Definition of a Woman
The Issue
This petition seeks to overturn For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
Trans women, trans men and NB folk have suffered a loss of rights this week as the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of woman, man, and sex are based on biological sex in the 2010 Equality Act, choosing to hear almost only from trans-exclusionary groups in their decision, and only giving Amnesty's intervention one sentence before spending the entire rest of the paragraph speaking about statements made by bigoted organisations. It brought along an onslaught of other inflammatory statements and decisions, accompanied with the patently false claim that 'sex is binary', creating a vague and exclusionary definition (not just for trans women, but also for peoples whose sex lies outside of the so-called 'binaries').
Not only does this new ruling severely infringe upon trans people's identities, but also disqualifies them from certain sex-based services, displaying the utter ignorance of the UK Supreme Court on how misogyny affects trans women, showing their ineptitude and why they were not competent enough to make this decision. This is seen particularly in Paragraph 231, which I will simply display below:
"231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast-feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above)."
This is an incredibly misinformed statement as trans women are over four times more likely to endure violent crime, such as rape and assault, and are as - or even more - in need of these support associations. Also, trans lesbians experience much of the same social conditions as cis lesbians, and trans women are able to lactate! There is not one valid example in that paragraph, which is highly concerning as these examples were used as rationale in this ruling.
Furthermore, trans men can be alienated from practically all 'single-sex services'; and the effectiveness of a Gender Recognition Certificate has been diminished (although still incredibly worthwhile, as it allows one to update their birth certificate). However, it is incredibly important to note that exclusion from areas like bathrooms are not the default, trans people are still allowed by DEFAULT to use a so-called 'single-sex service' unless asked otherwise, or set by organisational policy. However, this does not change the fact that the general public are misinformed on the matter and will try to act accordingly, as has happened already, almost certainly affecting cis women more than trans women as a matter of statistics, and as has also been recorded.
This is already a grievous infringement upon the rights of trans people, but it has already spring-boarded into further discrimination, based on the bigoted and discriminatory responses this ruling has received, emboldened by government action on this matter, causing an immediate and drastic change in quality of life for trans people.
The Court "strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so." However, this is clearly just an attempt at placation as one cannot introduce measures that would allow for and even encourage discrimination, yet state that there will not be any discrimination. Statements such as the ones made by Kemi Badenoch and Mims Davies also clearly contrast this:
"The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."
"This is a clear victory for common sense - and should never have taken a court case to prove the biological definition of a woman."
Furthermore, various news sources have taken the side of the bigots. These bigots are not called what they are: bigots, but as women's campaigners, who are supposedly advocating for the interests of women everywhere (they are not). The thumbnails accompanying news coverage of this ruling are of celebration, with bold titles proclaiming 'VICTORY!' and views made certain trans-exclusionary groups are being hoisted up.
Also, for a move that was meant to create 'clarity', it has certainly not done that. There is already an allowance for exclusion of trans people if it is through, "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim." While that is questionable by itself, this already nicely resolves all the 'anomalies' that this case sought to resolve, and this descent into further bigotry was completely unnecessary. It has left everyone more confused and the law more unclear, with contradiction and disparity from all angles, provided mostly by the press and government officials. Thus, this could potentially be a bad faith manoeuvre in order to gain more leverage and create less room for criticism. It probably violates Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but who knows? This is making people accept the worst, plausibly to create a more discriminatory guidance (based on the statements made by Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is making blatantly bigoted remarks) which the government will be providing soon. It is also amplifying the discrimination that trans people face, as the layman reads the misinforming news, not the 88-page judgement released by the Supreme Court. In fact, the EHRC has put out interim guidance that claims transitioned trans men and women cannot use any single-sex facility, which is blatantly discriminatory, and workplaces in the UK are already trying to put this 'guidance' into effect.
Despite what the news says, trans women and trans men and still women and men. The only thing that this ruling changes is the meaning of sex, man, and woman in a specific Act. While this misinterpretation of trans men no longer being men and vice versa. is utter bogus, it is incredibly disconcerting to see the news push this misinformed bigotry, as well as many 'pro-trans' politicians/MPs folding and saying that trans people are not legitimate, exposing their true nature.
We must not let decades of progress be wiped out by one decision of the minority, show that we will not submit to bullies, and stand firmly and proudly for what is right. Unfortunately, it can only get worse from here, so it is important to immediately shut down any attempts of bigotry while it is still fresh and novel.
The knock-on effect will be, and already is, immense. It is absolutely contributing to the instability of society; the normalisation of targeting trans men will happen next (as has often been the case), an inevitability considering that they are two sides of the same coin, and discrimination against trans people is already being normalised. The novelty of this government-sanctioned scapegoatism has worn off and transphobia will become the new norm without action. Other queer people will be subject to discrimination next, as seen from the pattern that the US has taken. This is also damaging to literally everyone in the UK, as a lowering in the rights of one group means less rights for all.
Also, the British Transport Police has announced that when being strip-searched, detainees will be searched by members of their identified sex at birth, which means that trans people who have literally undergone reassignment surgery will still undergo searches by members of the opposite sex.
A great question that has been raised is how would the British Transport Police tell what one's identified sex at birth is, to which the answer is: they do not. One is not legally required to produce identification regarding if they are trans or not. This opens up ample opportunity for abuse of power as anyone could be searched by a member of the opposite sex if they 'do not look cis enough.' This policy was changed directly as a result of this new ruling, yet the senior judges in the Supreme Court have the gall to claim that the law still protects "all trans people against discrimination?"
This new ruling impacts all trans people, and trans men are affected as much as trans women, and are even mentioned as much on the judgement, but the media has not focused on this at all, as it does not fit its chosen narrative. By explicitly targeting trans women, and erasing the struggles of trans men, this new ruling has shown its true colours: another effort in scapegoating trans women, infantilising trans men, and pretending that it is progress, just like how it always has been.
18,641
The Issue
This petition seeks to overturn For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
Trans women, trans men and NB folk have suffered a loss of rights this week as the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of woman, man, and sex are based on biological sex in the 2010 Equality Act, choosing to hear almost only from trans-exclusionary groups in their decision, and only giving Amnesty's intervention one sentence before spending the entire rest of the paragraph speaking about statements made by bigoted organisations. It brought along an onslaught of other inflammatory statements and decisions, accompanied with the patently false claim that 'sex is binary', creating a vague and exclusionary definition (not just for trans women, but also for peoples whose sex lies outside of the so-called 'binaries').
Not only does this new ruling severely infringe upon trans people's identities, but also disqualifies them from certain sex-based services, displaying the utter ignorance of the UK Supreme Court on how misogyny affects trans women, showing their ineptitude and why they were not competent enough to make this decision. This is seen particularly in Paragraph 231, which I will simply display below:
"231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast-feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above)."
This is an incredibly misinformed statement as trans women are over four times more likely to endure violent crime, such as rape and assault, and are as - or even more - in need of these support associations. Also, trans lesbians experience much of the same social conditions as cis lesbians, and trans women are able to lactate! There is not one valid example in that paragraph, which is highly concerning as these examples were used as rationale in this ruling.
Furthermore, trans men can be alienated from practically all 'single-sex services'; and the effectiveness of a Gender Recognition Certificate has been diminished (although still incredibly worthwhile, as it allows one to update their birth certificate). However, it is incredibly important to note that exclusion from areas like bathrooms are not the default, trans people are still allowed by DEFAULT to use a so-called 'single-sex service' unless asked otherwise, or set by organisational policy. However, this does not change the fact that the general public are misinformed on the matter and will try to act accordingly, as has happened already, almost certainly affecting cis women more than trans women as a matter of statistics, and as has also been recorded.
This is already a grievous infringement upon the rights of trans people, but it has already spring-boarded into further discrimination, based on the bigoted and discriminatory responses this ruling has received, emboldened by government action on this matter, causing an immediate and drastic change in quality of life for trans people.
The Court "strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so." However, this is clearly just an attempt at placation as one cannot introduce measures that would allow for and even encourage discrimination, yet state that there will not be any discrimination. Statements such as the ones made by Kemi Badenoch and Mims Davies also clearly contrast this:
"The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."
"This is a clear victory for common sense - and should never have taken a court case to prove the biological definition of a woman."
Furthermore, various news sources have taken the side of the bigots. These bigots are not called what they are: bigots, but as women's campaigners, who are supposedly advocating for the interests of women everywhere (they are not). The thumbnails accompanying news coverage of this ruling are of celebration, with bold titles proclaiming 'VICTORY!' and views made certain trans-exclusionary groups are being hoisted up.
Also, for a move that was meant to create 'clarity', it has certainly not done that. There is already an allowance for exclusion of trans people if it is through, "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim." While that is questionable by itself, this already nicely resolves all the 'anomalies' that this case sought to resolve, and this descent into further bigotry was completely unnecessary. It has left everyone more confused and the law more unclear, with contradiction and disparity from all angles, provided mostly by the press and government officials. Thus, this could potentially be a bad faith manoeuvre in order to gain more leverage and create less room for criticism. It probably violates Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but who knows? This is making people accept the worst, plausibly to create a more discriminatory guidance (based on the statements made by Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is making blatantly bigoted remarks) which the government will be providing soon. It is also amplifying the discrimination that trans people face, as the layman reads the misinforming news, not the 88-page judgement released by the Supreme Court. In fact, the EHRC has put out interim guidance that claims transitioned trans men and women cannot use any single-sex facility, which is blatantly discriminatory, and workplaces in the UK are already trying to put this 'guidance' into effect.
Despite what the news says, trans women and trans men and still women and men. The only thing that this ruling changes is the meaning of sex, man, and woman in a specific Act. While this misinterpretation of trans men no longer being men and vice versa. is utter bogus, it is incredibly disconcerting to see the news push this misinformed bigotry, as well as many 'pro-trans' politicians/MPs folding and saying that trans people are not legitimate, exposing their true nature.
We must not let decades of progress be wiped out by one decision of the minority, show that we will not submit to bullies, and stand firmly and proudly for what is right. Unfortunately, it can only get worse from here, so it is important to immediately shut down any attempts of bigotry while it is still fresh and novel.
The knock-on effect will be, and already is, immense. It is absolutely contributing to the instability of society; the normalisation of targeting trans men will happen next (as has often been the case), an inevitability considering that they are two sides of the same coin, and discrimination against trans people is already being normalised. The novelty of this government-sanctioned scapegoatism has worn off and transphobia will become the new norm without action. Other queer people will be subject to discrimination next, as seen from the pattern that the US has taken. This is also damaging to literally everyone in the UK, as a lowering in the rights of one group means less rights for all.
Also, the British Transport Police has announced that when being strip-searched, detainees will be searched by members of their identified sex at birth, which means that trans people who have literally undergone reassignment surgery will still undergo searches by members of the opposite sex.
A great question that has been raised is how would the British Transport Police tell what one's identified sex at birth is, to which the answer is: they do not. One is not legally required to produce identification regarding if they are trans or not. This opens up ample opportunity for abuse of power as anyone could be searched by a member of the opposite sex if they 'do not look cis enough.' This policy was changed directly as a result of this new ruling, yet the senior judges in the Supreme Court have the gall to claim that the law still protects "all trans people against discrimination?"
This new ruling impacts all trans people, and trans men are affected as much as trans women, and are even mentioned as much on the judgement, but the media has not focused on this at all, as it does not fit its chosen narrative. By explicitly targeting trans women, and erasing the struggles of trans men, this new ruling has shown its true colours: another effort in scapegoating trans women, infantilising trans men, and pretending that it is progress, just like how it always has been.
18,641
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition created on April 16, 2025