[beeforpork]

This is not actually that much of a sensation -- the judges have made it clear at the very beginning that it is not their place to define what is sex or gender. The only thing they do is clarify how the words "woman" and "man" are to be interpreted in existing laws that have been made to protect women (e.g., and usually, from men).

And the result is: it is the judgement that those laws are referring to the biological sex (which it itself is recognised as being subject to some debate, too, so the judgement refers to another common definition).

That's all. It is not a redefinition or anything. I cannot really understand the enthusiasm of one side or another. It just clarifies what those laws were meant to say, and I tend to agree that anything else would most likely be an unintended reinterpretation. The judges also make it clear that if law makers want more protection for other groups, e.g., trans people, they probably need to make more laws for that.

I also find that this is a very complex topic, because it was about the question whether in sex separated prisons, it is more important to protect trans women from cis men, or to protect cis women from imposter trans women cis men. I mean -- who knows a trivial solution to that? The judges clarified basically that the original law was probably just concerned about protecting cis women from cis men, because probably no-body thought about it. And for the sake of clarifying anything, they said that "woman" probably meant "biological woman". They were tasked to decide something, so they did.

And, well, at least that's I read into this... You can have a look for yourself, maybe, before taking one side.

[aaaja]

> I mean -- who knows a trivial solution to that?

Segregate by sex first and foremost, and then within each prison estate further separate prisoners by risk categories. It's what's done already for vulnerable inmates: ex-cops, gang informants, pedophiles, etc.

The reason that some penal systems started transferring males to women's prisons wasn't to protect them from other males - this was a justification invented afterwards - but because they decided to implement ideological beliefs that promoted gender identity over sex. Regardless of how much risk this exposes female prisoners to.

Thankfully this sort of policy is starting to be reversed, or has been already, almost everywhere it's been imposed.

[mytailorisrich]

The clarification is important because there have been a lot of arguments and fear of being sued for exluding trans women from "women only" areas from changing rooms to sport and even gynecologists.

My understanding, reading the various reactions in the article, is that now it is fully legally safe to deny trans women access to the "women changing room", or to "womens" categories in sport, or to lesbian meeting places, etc.

[beeforpork]

Yes, I agree that that is a consequence. But before this judgement, the laws were ambiguous, which is arguable the worst that can happen with laws.

[stubish]

It certainly is arguable. The more unambiguous the law, the less room for common sense decisions. Now there is the situation where people who physically appear male but declared female at birth must use female facilities, by law. And cannot be excluded, per discrimination law. And possibly conflicts completely with religious persecution laws, depending on how religious leaders define girls and women when it comes to gender segregated facilities like hairdressers or swimming pools. And a judge no longer gets to make a common sense ruling based on who's wobbly bits were being flaunted in whom's face for what reason.