Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

No, I don’t. You do though, clearly.. as you seem to have some difficulty understanding the scope of it and need to define it for yourself.

Evidence of women’s right being eroded is clear. This thread alone points to many examples.

Stop making up things that I have never said. You have done that numerous times in numerous threads.

Id appreciate an apology for you lying about my posts over and over .

Mod Edit: Warned for uncivil posting

You've misunderstood the nature of the court case. It was not a complaint that specific trans women had taken the place of biological women. It was a request for clarification of the law so as to ensure that it can be properly applied, and not misapplied, thus preventing potential punitive cases in the future.

The introduction to the judgment gives this as context:

There is an importantconstitutional reason for having regard primarily to thestatutory context as Lord Nicholls explained in Spath Holme,397: ‘Citizens, with the assistance of their advisers, are intended to be able to understand parliamentary enactments, so that they can regulate their conduct accordingly. They should be able to rely upon what they read in an Act of Parliament.’

JUDGMENT For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The ScottishMinisters (Respondent)

IOW in the UK they don't have to wait until a problem arises before clarifying what exactly the law means. I gather the US works differently: judges can only examine a law in light of a specific incident. But this was not the US, so that's moot.

Sadly for the NHS of course and a number of universities and other employers, they have been so badly advised by Stonewall and other activists that they have in fact already broken the law, so there will be legal repercussions from this clarification. Dr Beth Upton, for instance, no longer has a case at all. The Darlington nurses will also, presumably, get a settlement from their hospital.

So if your objection is that the problem hasn't yet happened, turns out you're wrong.

The fact that it was brought years ago over one potential problem felt likely to arise from a 2018 law, which may or may not have occurred in practice, is entirely irrelevant.

Indeed it's probable that the employers most directly concerned were waiting for a judgment before they decided whether or not to name any trans women in place of biological women.

Or maybe they just didn't use Stonewall for their legal advice?

Either way, I imagine they are breathing a massive sigh of relief that they did not just plunge ahead the way the NHS did.

The Sandie Peggie, and Darlington Nurses cases show it very much was a problem that needed clarifying.

so what

The women quota issue to which you refer is just one of the first issues that led to the For Women Scotland group to form in the first place

It's the case they appealed to the Supreme Court.

with two trans-identified males seen in the final of a woman's pool comp recently.

Isn't that what you want?

That '20% of kids in school identify as LGBTQ' sounds dramatic, but it's not at all if you focus primarily on the first three letters and forget about the last three.

Increases in people coming out as gay I'd imagine is down to homo/bisexuality being more socially acceptable now than it was in the past. That will be reflected in all age groups, including those still in school.

Gay people were always there, they're just more comfortable actually saying they're gay now.

You are entirely wrong because you seem to think the ruling applies only to that one instance. It doesn't - it applies to all sorts of situations, and there will be a number of real life cases where punitive damages are already going to be the probable result.

So how can you say it has no toehold in reality? That's self evidently nonsense.

As for whether it's a silly culture war - what is your opinion of the Darlington nurses' case? Or Sandie Peggie? What do you think she should have done - just gone ahead and changed in front of Dr Upton so as not to hurt his feelings? Don't Sandie Peggie's feelings matter just as much? How is it "culture wars" to say that women must be entitled to say no without risking professional sanctions?

As for whether it's a silly culture war - what is your opinion of the Darlington nurses' case? Or Sandie Peggie?

Bunch of God Bothering bigots and bullies from my reading of it. Peggie seems like a dangerous individual who allegedly put patient safety at risk.

The Darlington ones seem to be bankrolled by various Christian Groups.

Not a bunch of people to admire IMO.

They ARE getting it, but they're just not going to admit this. As you observe elsewhere, left v right is what's most important to them.

If the splitting of hairs was a profession.. or a sport. Now that would be good. You could just argue with yourself.

Yes, a slow drip truth effect.

The left seem to want to die on this hill and gift wrap it to the devil to play with and win.

A political tragedy. If Shakespeare was around, bet he’d have fun bringing this entangled drama to the stage.

It outlines in law what a woman is which sounds completely crazy that it had to happen but there you go

Well, the tide has finally turned and common sense has prevailed. I strongly suspect that we are going to see a lot of back peddling.

I love how essentially the SC ruling is the Trans argument presented to itself. All the years I heard from Transgender individuals was 'Gender not Sex'. Well, here we are this ruling is about sex, which can not be changed in humans, and is a binary (intersex is an umbrella term for 40+ development conditions, and not a third sex).

I am over the moon for the women, girls, and lesbians of the UK who can now safely have same sex spaces, and same sex services. Why it took this long to get here is ridiculous!

It's your contradiction.