Aislinn

The Closing Ceremony marks the end of a truly successful #ECDV2025. We’ve shared valuable insights to prevent domestic violence, enjoyed outstanding participation, and gathered in a beautiful venue that inspired connections and future collaborations across Europe.

Gikii 2025: Amsterdam CfP GiKii 2025 – Call for Papers Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) 11-12 September 2025 Technology in its villain era Has technology’s slouch towards everm…

Gikii 2025 in lovely Amsterdam has extended its CfP till May 31. Sept 11-12 th at IViR. Get your geek on and set your geek clogs tapping! No i don’t know what i mean either 😂 www.gikii.org/gikii-2025-a...

I believe this means the sun will set over the entirety of the British Empire tonight for the first time in several hundred years. Chagos is the dot below India on this map. Sunset in the Pitcairns (dot in the Pacific) will happen ~40 minutes before sunrise in Akrotiri and Dhekelia (dot on Cyprus).

Sometimes you go to a panel at a conference and the papers are so good they just blow your mind. That's me with @joannesweeny.bsky.social, who's just presented on Cyber Harassment in the Workplace at #LSAChicago2025

As it stands, I think there are insufficient protections and there is a need for further legislation and clarity about when you can exclude by sex and when you can exclude by gender. And we need to clarify sex/gender protections across a range of legislation. The SC can't do that though.

It's not feasible in everyday life - someone with a GRC gets a revised birth certificate anyway. And it's not like you can put a security guard on every toilet demanding a hormone test before you allow in any suspiciously tall woman.

You're clearly very angry, and I agree this decision makes very clear that there are insufficient protections for trans and gender non conforming individuals. But I don't think the Supreme Court could have decided otherwise, based on the constraints they perceive themselves as bound by.

The question was whether the GRA was implicitly excluded, which can be done under s9(3) GRA. In order to keep consistency across the whole Act, it must have been implicitly excluded. I agree, the arguments on lesbian spaces poor - but other arguments are, like gender-affected sport.

They weren't the unique hinge, but they were a very clear indicator. The Inner House suggested that woman would be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the Act, which the SC said is unacceptable. I don't think it was a reversion to the 1975 definition - it never changed.

I'm not sure I understand this point - where in the GRA are you referring to? This is noted extensively in the SC decision, where they use 9(3) to reason that the GRA must be excluded by virtue of the incoherence of interpreting it as including those with a GRC.

The thing is post-op is not a legal status. GRC is a legal status, and doesn't require operative intervention. That means you can have two biologically identical people, one with a GRC and one without, who if they got pregnant, would have different protections, which is untenable.

That means we need to introduce new legislation which considers the overlap between sex and gender protections because the definition in the SDA, and thus the EA, fails to protect many trans and enby people.

If only 'biological women' can get pregnant, but legal men can get pregnant then the maternity protections must apply to biological sex, not legal sex (or we leave trans men without protections). For consistency, all references to woman/sex in the EA must therefore mean biological sex.

I don't think the limited characters of BlueSky posts are enough to discuss this. The SC judgment refers to 'biological sex', which generally matches sex assigned at birth. Not everyone assigned female at birth can or does get pregnant, but *only* those afab can get pregnant.

I didn’t say it was intuitive. Being menopausal or post hysterectomy doesn’t change what sex you were assigned at birth though. And it’s unlikely that it was contemplated when the SDA was being implemented, so it’s not for the SC to critique what Parliament contemplated when they enacted it.

I've never seen a more accurate description of this...

Israel has dropped more bombs in Gaza than fell on London, Dresden & Hamburg combined during WWII [𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴].

Read that & consider that Gaza is, on average, only 5 miles wide & 25 miles in length.

Life expectancy has dropped from 75.5 years in 2023 to 40.6 years now [𝘓𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘵].

Genocide.

Again, as I said, there's a need for clearer legislation which doesn't rely on sex assigned at birth - so that gender isn't associated with reproductive organs. But the legislation, as it stands, does do that.

But there's a capacity to include trans women in single-sex spaces, provided it's reasonable and proportionate. For a surgically and medically transitioned trans woman, it would be reasonable and proportionate to include her in single-sex spaces. We need new legislation anyway - what about enbies?

But the argument made in favour of retaining the lower court decisions then leads to inconsistency in interpretation within the statute itself, if we don't want to leave trans men without maternity protections. Yes, they're a very small minority, but that can't have been Parliament's intention.

Honestly, I agree - I do think there's a need to reform the legislation to make this clearer. But that wasn't for the Supreme Court to do - it's a job for Parliament.

It's not the only example they use for determining whether it means sex assigned at birth - just the only one I listed. It's discussed in part 15 of the judgment (paras 166-88), where they look at various provisions, including the incoherence of differentiating between a trans person with/out a GRC.

This echoes what I’ve said above - you can exclude, but you don’t have to. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...

Image asking for data about online censorship targeting pro-Palestine posts on Facebook and Instagram.

There has been a sharp rise in censorship of pro-Palestinian voices on Meta platforms.

7amleh is collecting evidence from European users about content takedowns, shadow banning, and account suspensions on Instagram or Facebook.

Click here if you've experienced this form.jotform.com/250692597434...

Thread has a second half here: bsky.app/profile/aisl...

And reach out to your trans and nb friends and colleagues - make your support visible. We see you. We stand with you. We fight by your side.

YouTube video by Sex Matters Supreme Court win | Baroness Kishwer Falkner on Radio 4

The statements by Baroness Falkner on Radio 4 (available here: youtu.be/jaR0tbIGe0E?...) about blanket exclusions are likely to be overreaching and so watch out for the opportunity to give comment on any draft guidance.

And we’re really not doing great at providing spaces - like bathrooms and changing rooms - which are single occupancy and enclosed. Arguing for that would avoid pearl clutching either way.

The wording of the Equality Act is wildly outdated - it refers to ‘transsexual’, which is really not what we want to be using. Gender recognition certificates are only available if you intend to change gender from M to F or F to M - we’ve got nothing for enbies.

Argue for rephrasing the pregnancy and post-pregnancy protections to include trans men bearing children, to avoid dysphoria about ‘maternity’ protections.