https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law:

Judge Lord Hodge told the court that "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."

Does this change anything?
Because it says the law is still there to also protect transgender people.
Its just in a legal sense they needed a clear cut answer to "what is a woman" and this was what they decided on.

"Edinburgh-based trans rights charity Scottish Trans says it is urging people "not to panic" after a ruling that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex."

"There will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people's lives," the charity writes on social media platform Bluesky.

So like, the trans community is like "don't panic" (or cause panic online).
It isn't needed.

Wonder when we get the ruling if water is wet or not...

Seems right. Otherwise the words "woman" and "man" would become rather meaningless.

Humankind since the dawn of time have known what a woman is, so it's nice to see that modern times are catching up finally.

I'm wondering what the benefits of this could possibly be?
Because, it's not like anyone has to adhere to their language, and it doesn't seem to be enforceable - because if they try to enforce it, they'll be pressured to overturn it on grounds of discrimination.

It doesn't seem that this anything more than a big discriminatory virtue signal to please stupid people. They're stupid because the people pleased about this gain nothing, and yet are often passionate about harming others and will dedicate energy to do so with no personal gain for them or anyone really.

So, my take on this is pointless agitation, and ultimately nothing more than a virtue signal against a culture of freedom and liberty.

The fact that we needed a court to rule such things is an indictment on us all.

The way I'm reading this thread is that people are replying based on the title alone. Good times.

I don't really know, but I presume it is easier now to keep men from female prisons. And some rapist men have already been sent to female prison. Heard about a case in Scotlabd a while back.

And I would presume it is easier to keep men from female sports, where they have stolen sponsors, awardes, honoures and money that would have belonged to women.

And it is not discrimination, if it is not even true. The supreme court believes so. And even though I don't exactly have a survey or something to back this up, I will go out on a limb and say the big majority of people see it that way too. For whatever that is worth.

Two things. Why are we just defining what a women is? And also, if this is in reference to an equality act, why is it relevant at all? Maybe I misunderstanding this but do women have rights that differ from men? Or if someone is transgender, don't they still get the same rights as everyone else?

My opinion is that people should and will continue to live in their own truth and I wouldn't waste my time trying to force some to think about their body the way I think about mine. I actually have no interest in doing so.

Now defining labels based on birth sex seems fine for things that direct impact the group at large such as competitive events and what not. Bathroom I could care less about because I have used unisex Bathroom where everyone was packed in there and guess what? Nothing happened.

But at large I find that I really don't consider gender self assignment as an issue and the whole thing doesn't deserve the attention it gets.