Talk:For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

significance

According to rsp there is no consensus on the reliability of the telegraph with it's coverage of trans people (as is the case here).

With the actual content of the edit we have the statement

"protection for women under the Equalities Act will no longer apply to transgender women".

This seems at odds with the BBC

[Lord Hodge] added that the legislation gives transgender people "protection ... against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".

Quite frankly, we have a source that's judged to be more reliable quoting the original statement saying that protection for women can still apply to transgender women. LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You've misunderstood both sources I think. What both sources say is that transgender people have protections due to their protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I agree that the BBC is actually a better source here, since it refers to transgender people (of both sexes), whereas the Telegraph specifically talks about trans women when in fact these protections will apply to all. Both sources also say that protections against sex-based discrimination apply only to people who are born female (regardless of if they are trans or not).

So when you say protection for women can still apply to transgender women, that's not what the sources say. They say that transgender women (and men) have protection under the Equality Act, but transgender women will not have the sex-based protections for women in that legislation. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, to avoid confusion I should have put out the full quote from lord Hodge in the BBC

He added that the legislation gives transgender people "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".

This should make it clear that he does mean that transgender people are protected by more than just the characterstic of gender reassignment and are protected from discrimination based on their acquired gender. (I.e a trans women who was being payed less because she's a women would still be protected and could claim discrimination.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right that the court is signaling that it would rule such discrimination illegal, but I think you are missing that the Equality Act prohibits the forms of discrimination in the quote (direct, indirect and harassment) both if someone has a protected characteristic (women and the female sex according to this judgement) or if they are perceived to have it. So in your example, if a trans woman is discriminated against on pay for being a woman, yes the Equality Act would grant protection from sex discrimination, but that is not a specific protection for women that is being granted to trans women. In the same way, a cisgender person who is misidentified as being trans and discriminated against on that basis receives protection from the Equality Act, but that is not a protection for trans people - it's a protection for everyone.

With that in mind, I think you can see that the BBC's quote does not contradict the statement "protection for women under the Equalities Act will no longer apply to transgender women". That said, phrasing it in that way is probably confusing, so I think a better formulation is required, to put in the judgement section of the article. In any case, I think the main thing being covered by sources about the ruling is not about these protections from discrimination being lifted, but rather about the existing exceptions (where sex discrimination is allowed) being interpreted as referring to biological sex only. I'm not really after a specific change to the judgement section of the article at this point (I think eventually this discussion will be relevant for that), because the coverage is still so new and ongoing, so happy to park this conversation here and see what emerges. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree about no change being made. The perception thing is something I knew about but no rs really seemed to comment on. The contradiction still does exist but more as an aside of the fact that the equality act protects everyone whenever it's talking about a protected characteristic, therefore saying part of the equality act no longer protects a group of people will always be inaccurate. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Could this be called a landmark case?

Just though I'd put this out there to gather opinions before I make the change; some UK news outlets like the Guardian, Sky News and the Independent but notably not the BBC (at least I can't find anything) are calling this decision landmark. SuperGuy212 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like it's probably too early to judge how impactful this judgement is and will be. A healthy dose of no deadline is probably helpful here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Notably - PoV

Seems undue to add this in wikivoice. It's already covered in the following sentence and only one of the two cited sources mentions the absence of trans testimony Golikom (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the word "notably", it was mostly there for flow, but I do think a reliable source mentioning it still makes it worth including - particularly because, there being two sources for a section of text and some information sourcing to only one is... completely normal on wikipedia? Snokalok (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, which is why i didn't try and remove the whole bit per the other editor. Golikom (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The statement is a bit odd because, from what I understand, no trans organizations applied to intervene. However, finding a RS to back that up is difficult because most RSs don't discuss trans representation at the hearing nor the Good Law Projects application. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Wording of the lead: ‘appealed legal challenges’

The article says in the lead ‘The case was brought by the gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS), who had appealed legal challenges against Scotland's Gender Representation on Public Boards Act for its use of terminology that was inclusive of trans women.’. This is unclear. The ‘Background’ section sets out the history of the case, in which FWS made a legal challenge by way of judicial review, and at some stages won, and at another, lost. I think it would be clearer if the wording was changed to ‘The case resulted from a legal challenge by For Women Scotland, against Scotland's Gender Representation on Public Boards Act for its use of terminology that was inclusive of trans women. The case was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court, which gave a ruling on the meaning of the words “sex” “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act 2010.’. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the language of that paragraph is sub-optimal, for one because you appeal rulings, not challenges.

I think your language is better, but still feel the phrasing "terminology that was inclusive of trans women" is strange. This creates the impression that it was merely the phrasing of the law, not its function, that was at issue.

HenrikHolen (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for an improved wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is the phrasing "found a unanimous decision" (without "in") correct?

Apokrif (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Times Law Report

For information, The Times has just published its law report on this case at [1] (paywalled). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

And there's now a comment piece [2] from Akua Reindorf KC, who is a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, though it's not entirely clear whether this is her personal opinion, or on their behalf, or a bit of both. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

LGB Alliance

@RelmC: @GnocchiFan: @Jonathan A Jones: In our article on LGB Alliance, it is described in the lead as ‘The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group and registered charity founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.' So we should be referring to it in this article as 'a British advocacy group and registered charity', and perhaps add ‘founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. We should not be referring to it as ‘anti-trans’. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree; there is definitely enough sourcing to call it anti trans based on just the very next paragraph of the lede alone. Relm (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This has also been litigated on that talk page numerous times - and each time rejected. Relm (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to go into detail explaining the group as this article isn't about the group. "Anti-trans" seems to be a succinct summary for our purposes, i.e. to know what side of the debate the group stands on, and mirrors the language used to describe trans rights groups (who are described as "pro-trans" or "pro-LGBTQ" in this section). GnocchiFan (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. "Anti-trans" is the phrasing used by the source and most succinctly describes the nature of the organization. HenrikHolen (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t follow RelmC’s comment – This has also been litigated on that talk page numerous times - and each time rejected. I have quoted the wording which is actually in the article – we do not say in wikivoice that LGBA is ‘anti-trans’ in that article, and we shouldn’t do so in this article. My original edit did not give any description of the organisation, as I consider that the link is enough for anyone who is interested. In fact, from the quote you can tell that the organisation is pro-lesbian. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless those lesbians are in relationships with transwomen of course. The reliable sources call them anti-trans and it is truly as simple as that. Relm (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The source is them.us which is intrinsically biased itself. "Gender-critical", not "anti-trans". 86.187.233.247 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ news publications are not "intrinsically biased". — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

My view on questions of this kind is that it is almost always best to avoid labelling groups or individuals, especially when those labels are contested. We have wikilinks, so that anyone who wishes to know more aout the LGB Alliance can find this out by clicking through. Attempting to summarise the summary of the summary by condensing the article to a single phrase is rarely helpful. So my personal preference is just to say "Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, stated that". But if we are going to add context then per the principle of least astonishment at WP:EASTEREGG we should follow the summary of the article we are linking to rather than provding our own description. Now if we look at the article and are guided by MOS:LEADSENTENCE we find that "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group and registered charity founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues." This seems to me to make three statements about the LGB Alliance, which I take to be in descending order of importance. First it is a "British advocacy group". That's already covered in the paragraph we are now discussing, either explicitly (it's included in the subsection devoted to "Advocacy groups") or implicitly (it's not in the "International" subsection). Secondly it is a "registered charity". Thirdly it was founded "in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues". That's a carefully crafted statement which describes their precise position with suitable nuance, which "anti-trans" does not. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then perhaps that lead needs to be updated as well to reflect our sources. Snokalok (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. But unless and until it is my comments apply. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with JAJ's comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree Golikom (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the lead there needs updating; there is plenty of evidence to describe LGB Alliance as "anti-trans", even despite the lamentable state of the British press.

However, I also agree that we should be (and remain) consistent in our description here and there — if only so we aren't litigating wording changes in 2 separate places. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with your reasoning and support the prefered version you proposed: "Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, stated that" Ratgomery (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Quotes by J K Rowling, and of what was written on statues

@GnocchiFan: Why have you deleted the quotations? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling quote has been re-added. I'm not sure this article benefits from saying what was written on the statues but if you want to re-add I won't object. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Tbh I'm not sure the article benefits from naming all 7 of the statues, the bbc doesn't name all 7 (it only names 4 and primarily focuses on the statue of Millicent Fawcett). The telegraph clearly has an axe to grind and somehow knows this was done by transgender rights activists despite no one being charged or arrested yet. I'm going to be bold, remove mention of all but Millicent Fawcett and re add what was written on her statue. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

See I think it’s specifically because of that that we need all seven statues. Saying it was specifically Millicent makes it sound like her statue was singled out, when it wasn’t, it was one of seven statues of very disparate meanings and alignments Snokalok (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I was just thinking we were talking up a large amount of article space on something pretty minor and was looking for a way to reduce it down. Happy to hear other suggestions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Having just a quick list of names? Nelson Mandela, Jan Smuts, Earl of Derby, Millicent Fawcett Snokalok (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to change it to a list of all 7 names. Would it be more appropriate to wikilink to the statues or the people? LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The people, probably. Snokalok (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually looking through the articles I couldn't find which exact 7 statues where damaged. The telegraph says in article voice the 7 are:

Nelson Mandela, Sir Robert Peel, Benjamin Disraeli, Millicent Fawcett, The Earl of Derby, Viscount Palmerston and Jan Christian Smuts.

However a quote from Yvette Cooper used in both the BBC and the telegraph indicates that the Winston Churchill statue was also defaced which would make the total 8. I had a look but couldn't find another article mentioning which 7 statues were defaced.

I'm hesitant to change the article without being certain about the 7 LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps say “According to Yvette Cooper, the statue of Winston Churchill was also defaced”? Snokalok (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The only reference to this is that one statement from Yvette Cooper, and even that is potentially ambiguous. Every other source either lists the same even or just says seven without giving details. So I see no reason to add this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a second source listing the 7 statues, I'm hesitant to trust just the telegraph because of the statement listing 1 different and it making up facts (saying it was trans rights activists when no one has been charged or arrested). A second source listing the same 7 would ease those concerns. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Times [3] says "Seven statues were defaced when thousands of people gathered in central London on Saturday to demonstrate against the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Protesters daubed “fag rights” and a heart on a banner held by the suffragist Dame Millicent Fawcett. Meanwhile, “trans rights are human rights” was painted on the pedestal bearing a memorial to Jan Christian Smuts, a South African military leader and statesman. Statues of the former South African president Nelson Mandela and former UK prime ministers Edward Stanley, the 14th Earl of Derby, Lord Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel, who established the Metropolitan Police in 1829, were also defaced with pen, chalk and spray paint." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think we should give a lot of space in this article to defacing of statues, which is only marginally relevant to the legal case. I support the current wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Times and The Telegraph get upset about non-permanent damage to statues all the time, especially when it's by groups they disagree with. A mention that it happened is more than adequate. I too support the current wording — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly happy with the current text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Responses from advocacy groups

It seems very odd that we don't currently include any reponses from For Women Scotland, who brought the case, or from Sex Matters, who intervened on their behalf. These would form a natural trio with the LGB Alliance, who also intervened. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have now added some, but there may be better quotes or sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Have added details of all the interventions, which were omitted in favour of lengthy descriptions of failed interventions. Void if removed (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Is "cisgender" a neutral term?

Recently, Snokalok (talk · contribs) changed "biological woman" to "cisgender woman" [4], with an edit summary "neutral terminology". I think this is a matter which needs to be discussed, as this is obviously a controversial issue. MOS:GIDINFO doesn't explicitly address this point, but links to this discussion which came to the conclusion "the term 'cisgender' not be used without sourcing." Now, that discussion was 10 years ago, and societal attitudes may have changed, but we don't currently have an official update to that particular issue. While it may be appropriate to re-open the general discussion at a more visible location, it might be better for this article to find a term which is less associated with one side of the debate. "Cisgender" is not used in the judgement (or the sources), so should be excluded if the guideline mentioned above is still to be followed. If "biological woman" is a similarly-loaded term, we should find one that is genuinely neutral. "Biological woman" is the term used in the judgement. Tevildo (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Quite a lot of gender critical women, so the sort of women who funded the FWS case, consider "cis" and "cisgender" to be slurs, so it's by no means a neutral term. The judgement uses the term "biological woman" so it would make sense to use that term, in quotes if needed to make it clear that these are the Supreme Court's chosen words not Wikipedia's. Juroreight (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, okay, and Nazis consider the word “Nazi” to be a slur because it’s effectively the German equivalent of “Cletus”, but we still say Nazi - even when the source says National Socialist

ADDENDUM: Cisgender is still the standard term, the only person of note who considers it a slur is Elon MuskSnokalok (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

We should use the term used in the judgement obviously. Ratgomery (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that what language the judgement uses is inconsequential to the edit being discussed here. What would matter is the language used by the Scottish government. I personally prefer cisgender as it has the advantage of us being able to wikilink to it and is well defined (as opposed to biological woman which always brings up images of cyborg woman). The term cis is also used by one of the two sources used to back up that passage. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The impugned text reads "[A] trans woman with a full GRC has changed their legal sex from their biological sex (male) to their acquired sex (female)... [A] trans woman with a full GRC must be treated as a woman." (Judgement, para 22). Perhaps "transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are to be legally treated as being their acquired sex" might be a possible replacement for the current article text - it avoids the controversial word, and more accurately matches the Scottish government's statement. Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

We should indeed follow the language of the Scottish Government in reporting their case, just as we follow the language of the Supreme Court in reporting the outcome. The problem is determining what that language actually is, as they are pretty unclear on this point. By contrast Amnesty provided a very detailed position statement, and it would be entirely right to use "cisgender" when discussing their contributions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is, “biological woman” is more or less a dogwhistle. That is, I’ve not seen it used anywhere except when used to justify anti-trans policy. We shouldn’t be giving it credence in wikivoice Snokalok (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is not about the debate in the abstract: it's about a very specific legal case. And so we must follow the language in the case, and especially in the judgment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

“Cisgender” is not a neutral term. It is only used by one side in this dispute, and it is based on the assumption that everyone has a “gender identity”, which is disputed. We should use the language used in the judgment – “biological sex” - which is a neutral, factual term. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

By that logic, we have to repeat rulings from the Volksgerichtshof using the Nazis' preferred language because it's the language in the judgements Snokalok (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok: comparing the Supreme Court to Nazis is unconstructive, to put in mildly. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The Nazis had their own supreme court, what makes this supreme court's rulings any more worthy of automatic deference than theirs? The state is not the arbiter of truth. Snokalok (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a dog whistle. Some people may interpret and/or use the term "biological women" as a dog whistle. However, many people (regardless of beliefs about trans-inclusive female spaces) still use the term "biological sex/men/women". It is far more commonly used and understandable than "cisgender".

I do agree with others here that using the language used in the judgement is probably the best course of action. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue with the phrasing "biological woman" is that it is not clear that this term is intended to exclude transgender women, or include transgender men, seeing as many trans women would consider themselves biological women and vice versa.

I don't see any issue with using "cisgender". HenrikHolen (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason we use "biological women" is because that is the term used in the judgment, and this article is about the judgment. By contrast the term "cisgender" was (I think) ony used during the case by Amnesty International. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

In almost every case, cisgender woman is more neutral and appropriate than biological woman. There's no requirement that we use the language of the court's judgment, unless we're quoting them directly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The term cisgender is not nearly as widely known/used as "biological women". And unfortunately, it's a highly contested term/idea (aka not neutral). PositivelyUncertain (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

We're (aspirationally) a high-quality tertiary source that summarizes high-quality secondary sources. High-quality secondary sources tend to use cisgender, not biological. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate in some (most?) cases, but it certainly isn't neutral, as this discussion should confirm. Using the term means taking a side in the debate which is the subject of this article. If we, as an encyclopedia, want to rule that the term should be used in all such articles, MOS:GIDINFO needs to be updated. In the meantime, the guideline tells us that "cisgender" must be sourced, and we do not have a source for the exact words the Scottish Ministers' lawyer used in court - all we have is the official statement of their position which prompted the case. Tevildo (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a list of prior discussions, which can be helpful, but it's not a list of general consensus that applies to multiple articles. The discussion you're referencing only applied to one specific article, and it's practically ancient history at this point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact nazis were immediately brought up three times over some very light disagreement over the term is a pretty big indicator it's not that neutral. Ratgomery (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, you're right. We shouldn't be writing about a fascist movement that antagonizes and targets a specific minority group in any way, style, or method *remotely* similar to how we write about previous fascist movements that targeted specific minority groups. That would be insane. And, we certainly shouldn't reference the most widely known of those previous fascist movements with the most thorough and high quality coverage to guide how we write about this one. That would be entirely out of the question. /s Snokalok (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't reddit Ratgomery (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure the sarcasm was clear Snokalok (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A better solution would be to not be sarcastic on wikipedia talk pages as it's not productive and not a forumn. Ratgomery (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it serves rather well in this case, since it's being used to illustrate the flaws in your point Snokalok (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really considering I have no idea what the first "fascist movement" that you're comparing to the nazis is supposed to be. The supreme court of the UK? People who use the term biological sex? Either way it's an assertion of an extreme personal opinion that does not at all suggest you're being neutral and in fact suggests the opposite. Ratgomery (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Whenever the text uses "cisgender woman/women" in place of female it ends up being incorrect because these are not synonyms from the POV of the judgment.

For example, right now the article claims that the judgment:

defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women

This is poor in a couple of ways. The source looks like an opinion piece for starters, but more importantly that's not even what the source says, which is actually to quote the following from the judgment:

"a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females"

Rather than quote the source accurately, there's been an attempt to paraphrase "cisgender woman" in place of "female", which ends up making a false claim. In this ruling, a transgender man, even if in possession of a GRC and therefore legally male under the terms of the GRA, is - from the POV of the Equality Act - female. A transgender man exclusively attracted to females is considered "same-sex attracted" from the POV of the Equality Act. This is incompatible with a claim that the judgment stated all lesbians have to be cisgender women because it did not, and made clear why:

a trans man with a GRC (a biological female but legally male for those purposes to which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 applies) is a woman for the purposes of section 11

Editors may dislike this language. They may find it offends their sensibilities. Indeed, were one editor to use it about another or edit that onto the page of a transgender man it would doubtless lead to sanctions. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the correct approach for this article about the judgment and its actual meaning is to stick to the wording of the judgment, not apply euphemisms that are inaccurate, garble the ruling, and end up misleading the reader. Void if removed (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes cisgender is not only not neutral but it is wrong in the following phrase: "defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women." The court defined lesbian as a biological woman attracted to biological women. Biological women here would include transmen, who are obviously not "cisgender" 86.21.75.203 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Cisgender woman does not have the same meaning as biological woman. The term biological woman would include a transman, the term cisgender woman would not. 86.21.75.203 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This, I think, is a fair summary of the issue. The sentence which I originally flagged has been replaced with: "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the acquired gender of female, which I hope is acceptable to both sides. The second appearance of the term, quoted by Void if removed (talk · contribs), is sourced to Them - according to WP:PARTISAN, we should explicitly attribute the sentence to the magazine rather than stating it in WikiVoice, or replace it with a neutral alternative. As what that alternative would be isn't obvious, perhaps attribution of this sentence is the best solution - that is, replace: and defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women with and, according to Them, defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women. Doubtless this discussion will continue. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentence in the Them source is a direct quote from the judgment: "a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females"

If we say anything, we should use that quote from the judgment. There's no reason for any other language. Void if removed (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That might be best, although it probably still should be attributed - unadorned "female" or "woman" is, in this context, just as non-neutral a term. Tevildo (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've removed it completely - the issue is on a closer read, in the source it isn't a quote from the judgment - it is a quote from another, named source. All of this needs to be attributed to that source (Jess O'Thompson), if due, ie this is the opinion of that author. None of it is suitable for wikivoice claims about the judgment. There are better sources. Void if removed (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Jolyon Maugham’s article in the Independent

The text based on this includes: 'Writing in The Independent, Good Law Project founder Jolyon Maugham criticised the lack of testimony from trans people and pro-trans organisations in the proceedings, noting in the case of the latter that they likely declined "[because] they knew from bitter experience what legal proceedings involve.' I don’t have access to the source. The text in our article - 'they declined' - is not clear to me. Who declined? And what was declined? Did the Supreme Court decline a request from a trans organisation to participate in the case? Or did trans organisations decline to request to participate? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be based on the text 'Lots of organisations applied to be heard by the Supreme Court. These included Sex Matters, which shares For Women Scotland’s views; Scottish Lesbians – it does too; The Lesbian Project – ditto, and LGB Alliance – as before. All were permitted to make written or oral arguments before the Supreme Court, along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is also hostile to trans rights in the UK, and Amnesty, which, like the Scottish Government, is not trans. No trans organisations applied to be heard. This was not because they had no interest in the outcome, but because they knew from bitter experience what legal proceedings involve. They mean punishment beatings in the right-wing press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill off the organisation altogether. We know this because the organisation I run, Good Law Project, has funded and supported legal actions by trans organisations in the past, and we have seen these consequences. We asked all of those we knew in Scotland whether they might intervene – and they refused.' Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and the amendment to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

‘the decision to shut out from the hearing…’

Our article currently contains the text of a comment from Jolyon Maugham: He argued that "the decision to shut out from the hearing the people most closely affected by it made the decision weaker", and that the ruling was "the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling. The extract from Maugham’s article provided by Jonathan A Jones (above) makes it plain that trans people were not ‘shut out from the hearing’ but that the ‘decision’ was made by trans organisations themselves not to request to participate. So Maugham’s comment does not make sense, and including it in our article is misleading – the sentence should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones's quote left out the part that immediately followed But we did persuade the two architects of the Gender Recognition Act that created that certificate: the academic Stephen Whittle, and Victoria McCloud, who was, until she resigned because of what she experienced as a judge, the UK’s only “out” trans High Court judge. Both are trans, both with a Gender Recognition Certificate. ... But without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused to accept their application to be heard. As a result, this appeal was left with not even one trans person giving evidence.

So it's not misleading whatsoever: the Supreme court refused to hear from 2 preeminent trans legal professionals who were involved in crafting the GRC. IE, trans people were in fact shut out from the hearing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It is very unusual for the UK Supreme Court to accept interventions from individuals. They do accept interventions from an "official body or non-governmental organization seeking to make submissions in the public interest", but "No trans organisations applied to be heard". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the court did not hear from any trans people, so Maugham's statement still makes sense, is not misleading, and should be included. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The detailed situation needs to be explained in our article – currently, the wording does not make sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Find RS. The court refused to hear from two transgender legal experts who applied to be heard. At the moment, there are multiple RS that say the court heard no testimony for trans people. There are no RS that dispute that characterization.

Trying to extrapolate why the court refused to hear from them, absent a RS, is WP:OR. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand your comment. You are the one making the assertions – it is up to you to find sources to support your assertions. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The text currently in the article is back up by RS, any further explanation like how the court doesn't usually here from individuals would need RS discussing that in this exact context. What YFNS is saying is making complete sense. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

to LHA: No, it does not make sense to say I should provide a source when I have made no assertion which requires support from a source. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo

Courts have the discretion to consider arguments from outside "interveners" - but judges often reject such interventions if they conclude they are going to hear all the relevant arguments from others. The Supreme Court considered arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists.

The above is valid contextualisation if needed. Void if removed (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The supreme court doesn't hear "testimony". It hears legal argument. All evidentiary matters are decided at first instance. Void if removed (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Meaning of ruling disputed

"However, while the ruling allows single sex facilities to exclude trans people, they are not required to do so.[9] Governing bodies are not compelled to change or reconsider their rules and may continue their inclusive policies if they want to.[30]" Are we quite sure about this? There are some sources saying the exact opposite. If the truth cannot be established, I think we need to add wording that acknowledges that reputable sources disagree. For example, the EHRC has released interim guidance based on its interpretation of the ruling, which does in fact require trans people to be excluded from single-sex facilities. (See https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment and Akua Reinforf KC quoted at https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/opposition-supreme-court-ruling-ehrc-akua-reindorf/ ). Also, we know that the SC ruled that the Scottish government acted illegally in allowing trans women to count towards the women's quota on company boards. Does that in itself not suggest that, at least in some cases, existing inclusive policies might be illegal (as the Scottish government's was found to be) and therefore the statement "not compelled to reconsider...and may continue their inclusive policies" must be too broadbrush? (UKSC: "The issue here is only whether the appointment of a trans woman who has a GRC counts as the appointment of a woman and so counts towards achieving the goal set in the gender representation objective, namely that the board has 50% of non-executive members who are women. In our judgment it does not.") 95.193.38.215 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Also it looks like neither of the two sources cited for the above claims really backs them up. The first BBC article cited, as [9], says that "where there are, for instance, women-only spaces, then a biological man who identifies as a woman cannot use them. That includes changing rooms, toilets, women's refuges, single-sex hospital wards and anywhere designated as for one sex only." ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74z04j23pwo ) The second BBC article cited, [30], says that in sports, "Governing bodies are not compelled to amend or reconsider their rules - but if their rules now break equality law, they could face enforcement action" - so yes, technically they're not compelled to reconsider their rules, but they might find they're in breach of the law if they don't (depending what their existing policies are) (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g27n80lnjo ).

I am deleting these sentences from the article as they are not supported by the cited sources and also are untrue according to the EHRC, which is the relevant body responsible for enforcing the law, and according to the statements made by government ministers. 95.193.38.215 (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

SC doesn't hear testimony from anyone

The phrase at the end of para 2 is misleading: "No testimony was heard from trans people or trans advocacy groups in the proceedings."

The Supreme Court did not hear testimony from anyone, nor does it hear testimony in most cases. Testimony is used to establish facts, and the Supreme Court's role is not to adjudicate facts but to decide disputed points of law. In the process it hears "submissions" - not testimony - which are the different lawyers' arguments about how the relevant law should be understood. In addition to the lawyers representing the parties to the case, the court can hear submissions from "interveners," groups that have an interest in the case's outcome. In this case, one of the interveners was the charity Amnesty, and it argued the trans rights position, i.e. that "women" should be interpreted to include transwomen who had acquired a gender recognition certificate, and "men" should include transmen with a GRC. The respondent in the case, the Scottish Government, also argued for this position. 86.21.75.203 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Cis or biological

I appreciate that the term "biological" (used by the court) does not meet universal approval, but when the article says the following about the court's judgment: "It referred to a hypothetical trans woman as "a man who identifies as a woman", argued that misogny is rooted in the "shared biology" of cisgender women, and defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women." ...This is incorrect, because the court didn't use the terms "cis" or "cisgender", and "cisgender women" isn't a synonym for the court's term "biological women". Going by the meaning that the court gives to the term, misogyny would be rooted in the shared biology of biological women (including trans men), not just cis women; and a lesbian would be a biological woman attracted to other biological women, even if the biological woman concerned was a trans man. I think therefore the above statements must be amended to remove the misleading term "cisgender" which misrepresents the court's point of view. 95.193.38.215 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Using that language in the Judgment section is completely inappropriate (it's fine in some of the Response sections) so I have just removed the whole sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and gender identity

@Firefangledfeathers in regards to this reversion[5], it was supposed to be a footnote rather than a citation and I messed up the formatting.

Given that the court has ruled that sexual orientation is based on your AGAB, I think it's important per WP:FRINGE we have some MEDRS here noting that trans people have sexual orientations based on their gender identity. Apart from Ray Blanchard and co, nobody has defined trans people's sexuality by their AGAB in decades Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I figured there might be some error involved! I don't have an opinion on a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you calling the UK supreme court and the equality act FRINGE? Void if removed (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The idea that the sexuality of trans people is determined by their assigned sex at birth (ie, lesbian trans women are actually heterosexual, or straight trans women are actually gay, and etc) is indeed WP:FRINGE and has not been taken seriously by anyone in decades apart from Ray Blanchard and co. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I asked, and in any case the supreme court ruling was specifically about being in possession of a GRC.

The supreme court ruled a certificate does not change your sexual orientation for the purposes of the Equality act.

Are you saying that it is a FRINGE position that human beings aren't sexually attracted to paperwork? Void if removed (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I repeat my statement, hopefully with more clarity: the idea that sexual orientation is purely based on sex assigned at birth (such that lesbian/gay trans people are actually straight) is FRINGE.

You know it's FRINGE. Try this: pick a random trans editor here who openly identifies as gay or lesbian. Argue they're actually straight on a talk page. If you don't get sanctioned, we'll have proof it's not a transphobic FRINGE belief.

Are you saying that it is a FRINGE position that human beings aren't sexually attracted to paperwork - nobody has ever argued human beings are sexually attracted to paperwork so this is just nonsensical. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

nobody has ever argued human beings are sexually attracted to paperwork so this is just nonsensical.

That was the position of the Scottish Government, ie that a Gender Recognition Certificate changed sexual orientation under the equality act.

The supreme court found that to be nonsensical, and ruled it does not, stating quite explicitly that People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

This is not a FRINGE belief. Its just obvious. Unless you think a GRC is a form of conversion therapy, it is the only sensible interpretation. Void if removed (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of the equality act, according to this a trans lesbian is not a lesbian and a straight trans woman is gay. For the purposes of not being nonsensical and not taking an outdated fringe position, a trans lesbian is a lesbian and straight trans women are straight.

Unless you think a GRC is a form of conversion therapy, it is the only sensible interpretation - That's your opinion, one can recognize the existence of transgender LGB people without considering the GRC a form of conversion therapy. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an article about a supreme court case giving a definitive interpretation of the sex and sexual orientation provisions in the Equality Act.

This article is not a platform to make ontological claims more generally, and not everything you disagree with is FRINGE. Void if removed (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an article about a supreme court case giving a definitive interpretation of the sex and sexual orientation provisions in the Equality Act. - and how it led to mass protests across the country from the effected minority and a challenge being taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

Please give any evidence whatsoever that classifying the sexual orientation of trans people based on their sex assigned at birth isn't FRINGE that isn't just "the court did it". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you dislike UK equality law. That doesn't make the fact that it protects people based on their sexual orientation irrespective of their gender identity a FRINGE position. Seeing as the supreme court is not making any ontological claims beyond the meaning of the Equality Act, I'm not sure what your continued challenges are supposed to achieve. Void if removed (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

to YFNS: The position you are referring to is the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court. So it is not outdated, and it is not fringe. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Just because the court gave an opinion on a matter does not make it true, it makes it an interpretation of the law.

That is not the same as stating that "gay men are only attracted to people born with a penis and that if a man is attracted to trans men then he is bisexual not gay", which is very definitely a fringe position.

That "gender-critical" people seem to believe "lesbians are not attracted to trans women" is a no true Scotsman fallacy, given that plenty of people who define themselves to be lesbians are, in fact, perfectly comfortable with the idea of being in a relationship with trans women. That some GC lesbians are not comfortable with the idea does not redefine the term "lesbian", no matter what the Supreme Court or the EHRC says. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an article about the legal situation. Void if removed (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is untrue. Wikipedia prioritizes higher-quality sources per WP:ACADEMICBIAS; when we say that something is fringe, we mean that it is fringe according to the best sources. There are plenty of governments that deny climate change (or even evolution!), and plenty of places in the world where popular opinion reflects that; but it is nonetheless a fringe perspective in academia and among the highest-quality sources, so we must reflect that reality in our articles. This is no different. A court is an expert on the interpretation of the law within its jurisdiction; it is not an expert on medical or social issues. In situations where its legal conclusions contradict the best available academic sources on those topics, it carries no weight (outside of articles discussing the law, of course. And even then a court ruling itself is WP:PRIMARY.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

…outside of articles discussing the law, of course… This is an article about the law. In fact, it is an article about a decision of the UK Supreme Court. This discussion has veered away from any relevance to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Background

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I have reinstated the "see also" to the EA and the GRA. This case is principally about the meaning of "sex" in the EA, and whether or not it is modified by the GRA. Presenting a truncated history of the GRA only is inappropriate, and the interaction with both the GRA and the EA is explained through the background. A "see also" hatnote is a perfectly acceptable compromise, which avoids repetition and bloat, otherwise we need another paragraph explaining the background of the EA in the same way (to balance the coverage given in the cited source and avoid giving imbalanced focus to only part of the history). Void if removed (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Executive Order 14168

Can someone (eg. @LunaHasArrived) please explain to me what Executive Order 14168 - a 2025 edict by the Trump administration - has to do with the UK Supreme Court confirming the meaning of 15-year-old anti-discrimination legislation enacted by a Labour government, and its interaction with 21-year-old legislation enacted by a Labour government?

Genuinely baffled why this keeps getting added back in, this is weirdly US-centric from where I sit. Void if removed (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Void if removed I agree, it seems irrelevant. The UK SC doesn't consist of political appointees. It is nonpartisan. The court was merely interpreting existing legislation. And it was at pains to stress in its judgment that trans people have rights and remain a protected category of people in law. There is no evidence whatsoever that the judges were influenced by Trump's order or that they belong to the same ideological movement that he does. 31.192.197.247 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a judgement that is being used to replace gender with sex and to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces. Reading from the lead of the executive order it very much says the same (as well as more) these 2 events are separated by less than 3 months. The similarity in language and goals makes it an obvious choice of a "tangentially related topic". LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

So, no actual connection then, just forcing everything through a US political lens?

What do you mean "goals"? The Supreme Court doesn't have "goals". Void if removed (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't forcing anything through a us political lense, it's providing access to a tengentially related topic that could be of interest to our readers and that's not currently linked in our article. The clear purpose of a see also link. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The "tangential relation" is a fiction constructed by viewing this through a US political lens. There's no relationship between a Trump executive order and this case, not in substance, timing, cause or effect.

Now, what does Tickle vs Giggle have to do with this? Void if removed (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the point of see also links, Wikipedia:Seealso. Answering Tickle v Giggle first, a court case about the exclusion of a trans women from a single sex service seems very obviously related to a Court judgement whose entire thing is about when it's reasonable to exclude trans people from single-sex services. For the executive order see above, the order wants to replace gender with sex and exclude transgender people from single sex services, alongside talking about when it's legal to exclude transgender people from single sex services this judgement also defined woman and man in the equality act as referring to "biological sex" instead of gender. Both articles are clearly comparable. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware what its for and also that it seems to fall to common sense - I can't see how these are common sense connections, unless viewed through a US-specific political lens.

One is the politically-motivated withdrawal of federal recognition for transgender people, issued as an executive order by a right-wing president in the United States.

The other is the apolitical confirmation of how existing law in the UK works as relates to those people who possess a full gender recognition certificate.

And now you're adding in Tickle vs Giggle, which is an Australian case relating to a service user successfully bringing a discrimination claim against an app creator.

I don't see how these have a single thing in common, except that you seem to be viewing them through the lens of US politics, and it is all part of some nebulous "bigger picture".

Here's some suggestions for other, relevant "See Also":

• Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
• Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others
• Magdalen Berns
• Kathleen Stock
• Isla Bryson case
• 2021 United Kingdom Census

Pretty sure I could make a case for any of those being more directly relevant than Trump's rule-by-fiat which makes no sense at all to me. Void if removed (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a good case can be made for including Giggle v Tickle, especially when the Australian courts make a final ruling on the case - it's a legal decision in a common-law jurisdiction regarding exactly the same issue. If there are equivalent Canadian or American cases, they probably should be added. However, I agree that the link to Trump's executive order is not relevant to this article, and should be removed. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay but if we’re arguing that tickle v giggle is relevant because it’s a legal case covering the same issue, then we more or less have to include the EO. The mechanism of government is irrelevant if the ultimate policy is the same Snokalok (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it really. This case is fundamentally whether the Scottish Government had legislative competency to change the Equality Act (not devolved), by changing the Gender Recognition Act (devolved).

What it ended up settling was that the GRA's change of sex marker had no effect on the EA, and never had. It isn't a discrimination case and it isn't rights being redefined by executive order. Void if removed (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You say that but look at the government's response. Hell, look at the EHRC's response. The court only *needed* to say "trans women are not women (for the purposes of this singular law)" and that was all the rest of the government needed to implement the exact same policies of 14168. One part of the mechanism may be smaller, but it is still the same machine that produced the same outcome. Snokalok (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about the legal case, not the wider issue. There's a weak argument for including Tickle vs Giggle, which was a vaguely comparable legal case, but no argument for including an executive order on a related question. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

to Snokalok: You say:’One part of the mechanism may be smaller, but it is still the same machine that produced the same outcome. The ‘machine’ is in one case the UK Supreme Court, and in the other, the president of the USA. The UK is an independent country, and is not ruled by the USA. I believe you must be aware of this, so please stop making this kind of irrelevant comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at the responses section, you’ll see the rest of the government saying “Based on this ruling, we’re going to implement XYZ” - which is clearly a development that belongs in this article, so effectively this is an article about a court decision saying “trans women are not women” which directly caused the govt to implement all of these policies - the same way 14168 is, if you’ll read it, an article about the president very simply stating “trans women are not women” and every govt department scrambling to implement all of the same policies. The only difference between that article and this one is that the order that “trans women aren’t women” came from the president of the US vs the supreme court of the UK. Everything else is the same. Snokalok (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

FWS1 already established that trans women without a GRC are not female for the purposes of the equality act, years ago.

directly caused the govt to implement all of these policies

What policies? Void if removed (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Rejected interventions

Currently, the article states "[The Supreme Court] rejected an intervention by the Good Law Project on behalf of two transgender legal experts" and "A request from the Good Law Project to intervene on behalf of two transgender legal experts - Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle - was declined". According to the Good Law Project's own website [6], although the project "funded and supported" the interventions, the project itself did not make a request; McCloud and Whittle both requested to intervene as individuals. I would suggest the first sentence be reworded to "interventions by two transgender legal experts funded and supported by the Good Law Project", and the second to "Requests to intervene by two transgender legal experts - Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle - were declined". Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• While the Supreme Court did consider arguments on how the ruling would impact trans people – including from Amnesty – it did not hear from trans activists.[7]
• Although the Court allowed outside testimony from anti-trans groups such as the nonprofit Sex Matters — and even praised Sex Matters’ legal counsel Ben Cooper KC for providing “focus and structure to the argument that ‘sex,’ ‘man’ and ‘woman’ should be given a biological meaning” — no trans people were allowed to weigh in on the appeal. The Court denied a formal request last year by the Good Law Project to accept testimony from trans legal experts Dr. Victoria McCloud and Prof. Stephen Whittle[8]
• The court has been criticised after it refused to allow trans women to take part in the hearings, although it did allow the civil rights group Amnesty UK to participate on the Scottish government’s side.[9]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The second quote is not acceptable - the Supreme Court does not hear testimony from anybody. See below. Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether you call it "heard testimony from" or "heard an intervention from" - the point is still the same. We have multiple sources corroborating the fact that whatever you call their process of hearing from people, trans people were not heard from. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There is also the point that I made in my initial post that the Good Law Project did not make a formal request, only provided "finance and support" (per Maugham's own words, quoted several times above). No trans organizations were heard from because no trans organizations (including the GLP) applied to be heard from - no trans individuals were heard from (despite applying) because the Supreme Court does not hear from individuals. The bare fact may not be in dispute, but we should not try and spin it to sound like the Supreme Court prevented trans voices being heard. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

to YFNS:So what is your objection to Void if removed’s edit? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I said in the edit summary[10]: Multiple RS have noted no trans experts or advocacy groups were heard

VIR removed the line No testimony was heard from trans people or trans advocacy groups in the proceedings. You can debate whether the word "testimony" is the right one, but not delete wholesale that no trans people/groups were heard from. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I moved it up, and made it clear that an attempted intervention was rejected. Void if removed (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

While multiple RS have found it important to note that no trans people were heard from, you updated the text to remove that fact and replace it with a summary of interveners that does not make it clear no trans people were heard from. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

to YFNS:There is no debate – ‘testimony’ is the wrong word. This is not a quibble. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I already removed the word testimony so I haven't the foggiest why you're arguing this with me...

My point was multiple RS corroborated that no trans people were heard. This article should make clear no trans people were heard. If you object to the word "testimony", that is a reason to use the better word, but is not an excuse to remove that no trans people were heard. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Presenting a summary of who was permitted to intervene, and who applied but was rejected is straightforward NPOV.

No trans groups applied to be heard, so saying "no trans groups were heard from" is misleading to a reader, and is solved by enumerating who applied and who was rejected. No trans groups were heard from in the same way no plumbers were heard from.

Saying "no trans people were heard from" is vague and similarly misleading both in scope and in the operation of the Supreme Court, and much clearer and more precise to say two applied to intervene and were rejected.

We also have this source which doesn't outright say why, but the strong implication is that Amnesty already put their case, and the SC doesn't accept interventions unless they add something.

Courts have the discretion to consider arguments from outside "interveners" - but judges often reject such interventions if they conclude they are going to hear all the relevant arguments from others. The Supreme Court considered arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists.

Some variation of the sentence The Supreme Court considered arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists could work, because it makes clear the court did hear relevant arguments (not testimony or hearing) from Amnesty, but that there was no presentation of those arguments from "exclusively trans activists", and it may be helpful balance to the reader to note that the SC often reject such interventions if they are duplicative. Void if removed (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

No trans groups applied to be heard, so saying "no trans groups were heard from" is misleading to a reader - you may personally feel this way, but it's how most sources have covered this aspect, so we have to go with it. If you have sources of equal weight raising that objection, we could consider including it as well, but it doesn't change what the sources say - if you feel they got it wrong, contact them and request corrections / retractions. Until / unless that happens we have to reflect them rather than engaging in WP:OR to second-guess them. --Aquillion (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

‘Testimony’

The Supreme Court decides points of law – it does not hear ‘testimony’. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Very true. We need to make sure that we don't use that word in this section of the article. Tevildo (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

No trans people were heard

Creating this section to discuss whether we should report, as multiple RS do, that no trans people were heard in this case. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Per the RS above, we should very obviously be including this. So far, the two reasons for removing it have been 1) people don't like the word testimony, which is moot because we don't use the word testimony, and 2) only two trans people tried to intervene, which does not change the fact no trans people were heard from. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

We do report on this. The current discussion is how to address it in the lead. I think Void got it right.

The prior wording is vague and gives readers no sense of who and how many were not heard from. Why obscure that when we know who and how many? Also, it stated that no trans advocacy groups were heard - but no trans advocacy groups applied to intervene. How can the court be at fault for not hearing from organizations who never asked to be heard? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I would find something like the following to be not vague, while addressing your concerns over advocacy groups:

"In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. While an intervention by the Good Law Project on behalf of two transgender legal experts was rejected, the result of which being that no trans people were allowed to take part in the interventions."

Its pertinent, the well-sourced fact that no trans people were allowed input in the proceedings is imminently WP:DUE, and this wording overall clarifies how that situation came to be. It is probably more awkwardly worded than a more experienced editor could phrase it, but hopefully it conveys the idea. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That looks good to me! Thank you. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

One detail is that Amnesty's barrister was trans, so I think this isn't strictly correct as phrased. Void if removed (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"no trans parties"? I will leave it to those better versed in UK law to find a more strictly correct phrasing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

See my comment here I think the following sentence from a RS could be paraphrased effectively: The Supreme Court considered arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists. Void if removed (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not necessarily see this an an improvement over my own suggestion, which also addresses the concerns in your linked comment. I've since considered the input received and revised my suggestion further in a reply to Tevildo below.

There are many RS to pull all manner of different statements from, depending on what one considers WP:DUE. When considering the subject matter I see no issue in lending extra weight and making more explicit the levels of input trans parties were permitted, your suggestion seems a bit too weak. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that the Good Law Project did not intervene, or request to intervene. They just supported the two trans activists who sought to intervene as individuals. As discussed above (but not mentioned in the article, as it's not yet sourced), the Supreme Court very rarely considers interventions from individuals rather than groups, and this case was no exception. The point we should make, although finding the language to do it will be tricky, is that no trans organizations intervened because no trans organizations applied to intervene, not because the Supreme Court prevented them. Tevildo (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, I can address the Good Law Project specifics:

"In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. While an intervention by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, the result of which being that no trans parties were permitted to take part in the interventions."

I've tried to take care to make no implications of any unmentioned "organizations" being denied. Only those denied are stated, and the immediate result of that follows. You could even add the word "immediate" to the above, preceding "result", if you'd wish, but I don't believe that to be necessary. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I like this version but I'd take out the "While" and trim the "result of which being", so the second sentence would be An intervention by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to take part in the interventions Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me, no complaints. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd support this version. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think this works – an intervention was not made, because the individuals were not permitted to intervene. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. An intervention application by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties were permitted to take part in the interventions."

Please feel free to make such minor adjustments in the future. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Generally, if there's an issue that's easily fixable, you should try to fix it. For example, you could have proposed a simple edit, such as changing the start to An application for intervention .... voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(with that edit, I support YFNS' version) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I am avoiding trying to ‘fix’ anything on this article because I do not want to get involved in an edit war. On this Talk page, I was waiting to see if anyone else made a suggestion or comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

you could have proposed a simple edit implies replying in this discussion and proposing an edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the current proposal is:

"In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. An application for intervention by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to take part in the interventions."

If so, I'll support it. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This version is accurate and succinct. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I support this wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd end with "being permitted to intervene.". Taking part in the interventions doesn't sound quite right to me. Other than that, fine by me. Void if removed (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that change. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

While I prefer the former, this change is fine. I also prefer the more concise "intervention application" over "application for intervention", but this isn't a blocker either. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Void’s suggested amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously yes Snokalok (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject Law of this discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Came here via WP:LAW. I think @fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four's proposed wording correctly summarizes the facts of the case and is a neutral descriptor of what occurred. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the wording suggested by 15,224 above is quite accurate, because it implies that there was a specific bar on trans people taking part, when in fact it was just 2 individuals who were not permitted to intervene. We don’t know what would have happened if a trans group had applied to intervene. The wording in the edit by Void is more accurate. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not see my wording as stating anything other than simple causal fact, I ascribed no particular motive to the court. There were trans parties of concern, they were denied participation, a result of which was that there were no trans parties of concern participating. I find it hard to see this as being inaccurate, my wording clumsy sure, but inaccurate? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the fifth reversion of this content today, new wording is under active discussion, given that this is a CTOP can we please avoid an edit war while discussing the wording. Void if removed (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Your recent edit refers to the Talk page as if your edit has been agreed on this page (as per the talk page discussion, summarised for the lead, important to include). It has not been agreed. Please take part in this discussion, and self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement that it should be included and only minor disagreement over the exact wording. Clearly it's significant enough to go in the lead given the broad coverage; and a lot of the objections are WP:OR in that they're essentially people disagreeing with what the sources say based on their personal definitions of the related words. We ultimately have to summarize it the way the best sources do, and this more-or-less accomplishes that. --Aquillion (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

No, the amendment which was made to the article by John Cummings doesn’t constitute an accurate summary of what happened, nor is it in accordance with this discussion. The wording which now has most agreement is, as discussed above: "In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. An application for intervention by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to intervene." Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've now updated the lede with this which I believe is what was arrived at in the above discussion. Void if removed (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The text in the "Interventions and hearing" section, which was what I thought we were discussing, still contains the incorrect statement that the GLP applied to intervene. Rather than duplicating the "consensus" text above in both the lede and the subsection, we now need to come up with a suitable (shorter) sentence to use in the lede. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The lede is summarising longer material from the body about the interventions, but you're correct about the GLP in the body, I'll address that now. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Background

The paragraph starting "As a result of this ruling, the Act was amended on 19 April 2022" seems slightly confused. The date of 19 April is the date from which the Scottish government issued new stautory guidance. The act ws amended along these lines much later. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now taken a first pass at fixing this, but would welcome other attempts. It does get complicated because of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2024 which afforces the original statutory guidance, but does not address the issue of GRCs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Harman and Field

To Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and others: We need to have a discussion about how to present these people in this article. We must show clearly that they contradict each other, which means that their statements must be shown together. However, they were in different positions at the time of the drafting of the Equality Act, so there is no simple heading which would cover them both. Any suggestions? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to emphasize the contradiction, unless it's just to make the editorial point "The words of politicians are not always trustworthy" or something along those lines. This was not a Pepper v Hart situation, where the wording of the statute was ambiguous and the courts had to go back to Hansard to determine the intent of the legislature; in that case, Harman's words would have been relevant. However, in this case, the Supreme Court were able to come to their decision using the words of the statute as enacted, and the contradiction between Harman's and Field's statements has no legal (as opposed to political) relevance. Tevildo (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

They do not need their own subheading, and doing so is misleading the reader and inflating the role of a civil servant to imply more responsibility than is actually the case. This is part of the political response, nothing more. Void if removed (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to make it clear that people who claim to have been involved in the drafting of the statute say opposite things about the intention of the drafters. Since the judgment was about the original meaning of the words, I think it is important to make this contradiction evident in our article.

I agree with Void if removed that Field does not warrant her own subsection, and giving her this prominence is UNDUE and implies that there were no other comments from the ‘drafters’. (I see that Harman has recently been moved to be with other Labour Party figures.) Sweet6970 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that no-one has put forward any justification for having a separate heading just for Field. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Field has an entire article on her interpretation, stating she's the lead official who oversaw it. (2 actually[11])

Harman has a short clip in a BBC snippet saying she was involved in drafting it and coverage of a single tweet (where she disagrees with the interpretation of the EHRC, opposing blanket bans).

One is more weighty than the other and is singled out in sources as being particularly weighty. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have not suggested that Harman should have a section on her own, and neither has anyone else. A couple of sources about Field’s view is just about enough to make her views sufficiently noteworthy to be in this article, but not enough to justify a separate heading for her. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

If 2 full length articles on what the lead official who crafted the bill thinks about the ruling is just about enough to make her views sufficiently noteworthy to be in this article, surely a 4 sentence in a BBC snippet isn't enough to make her views sufficiently noteworthy

I have not suggested that Harman should have a section on her own, and neither has anyone else - never thought or said you did.

Field was in charge of making the bill and has 2 full length RS devoted to her thoughts on the bill on that basis- that's enough to justify a separate heading. Harman's statement was a snippet that doesn't justify removing Field's heading or restructuring it to put both of them in one heading. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Harriet Harman has said that she was involved in drafting the bill. She was a Labour MP at the time, and would be expected to have more to do with the intention of the bill than a civil servant. Harriet Harman is a much more notable figure than Field, and her views should have more prominence than Field’s. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We have 2 full length articles saying Field was in charge of the bill. From the guardian: Field was deputy director (discrimination law) at the Government Equalities Office – a unit inside the Cabinet Office – and the lead official for the 2010 act.

We have a 4 sentence long BBC snippet that says Harman was involved in drafting the Equality Act, with no note about scope or level of involvement.

Your opinion that Harman would be expected to have more to do with the intention of the bill than a civil servant is not supported by sources, which view Field as having a much larger role than Harman.

The presence or lack thereof of a Wikipedia article is not proof of notability. There is absolutely no source based justification for why Harman's views should have more prominence than Field’s. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Disputing that an MP would be expected to have more to do with the intention of the bill than a civil servant is to misunderstand UK politics. Civil servants have nothing to do with intention. They are apolitical, and their entire purpose is to see through the directions of the government of the day. The "lead official" would be the one tasked with overseeing the realisation of the government's policy, and would have no say in what the intention was whatsoever.

If Harman says "this was my intent" and a civil servant says "this was my intent" the latter carries not merely less weight - it is supposed to carry no weight, by design.

And in terms of notability, Harman is just a more prominent and senior figure full stop, same way in the text we'd usually prioritise a minister's statements over a backbencher, or the PM over a cabinet member etc. Void if removed (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet, there are 2 full length articles saying Field was the lead official of the act and oversaw it's drafting and passage and thinking her thoughts on its intentions are notable. And there are 4 sentences in a BBC snippet on Harman's position.

a civil servant says "this was my intent" - From Field: There are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament, [The courts'] role is interpreting parliament’s intention and, in so far as they’ve sought to interpret parliament’s intention, I’m pointing out what I know about what parliament’s intention was, which was not the conclusions they have come to

So this was not Field saying "this was my intent", this is the person in charge of the bill saying "this was not parliament's intent". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

And Harriet Harman was the minister who brought the bill forward, and is more important than Field in the chain of how these things work. What Field may have thought parliament's intent was is of no material consequence. It is, basically, trivia. It is due for the article, sure, because it has coverage, but it isn't due some separate section that implies very strongly to the reader that some civil servant seemingly has singular authority over the intent and meaning of the Equality Act. Void if removed (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In increasingly traditional style, Void if removed is not only right but also right for the right reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If void wants to complain about how much newspapers give prominence to certain individuals that's fine, however YFNS is right that RS give far far more prominence to Field than to Harman. Per false balance it would be inappropriate to give these 2 individuals equal weight when the RS's clearly don't. LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Weight is about space in the article. I don't especially care about the space devoted to each - but in exactly the same way a one-line comment from the prime minister would likely come before a three line comment from a minor civil servant, so too should Harman's opinion on the legislation she brought forward as a minister precede Fields', and frankly the idea of separating Field into her own category is undue to the point of misleading the reader. Void if removed (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The version in your recent edit [12] is a huge improvement. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Void’s comment is correct. And the recent expansion of this section by YFNS is wholly UNDUE. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree that the latest expansion is giving too much prominence to Fields' views after the event, which are rather disingenuous: "a transgender woman being paid less than a man could no longer bring a sex-discrimination claim for equal pay". Very true, they can't bring a case for sex discrimination under Section 11, but they can still bring a case based on gender reassignment, with or without a GRC, under Section 7. Without a suitable rebuttal to this statement, I don't think we should keep it. Tevildo (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Void for his recent edit. In order to tidy this up completely, we also need to delete the text:"and that "the basis on which the act was drafted was not to give sex the meaning that [the Supreme Court] have concluded it has". She said the bill was drafted in the context of parliamentary intent that "gender recognition certificate should have the effect of changing a person's sex under sex discrimination law", which is why it exceptions for single-sex services, and that "we were very careful to draft those provisions in a way that they would enable trans people to be treated differently in relation to those services" regardless of possession of a GRC. She commented that under the new ruling, a transgender woman being paid less than a man could no longer bring a sex-discrimination claim for equal pay as she'd be considered a man under the ruling." which is undue and inappropriate, as discussed above. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there agreement to delete the text I have specified above? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There is not. You've provided no alternative or proposed trimming, just called for deletion of important details:

• 1) that the bill was drafted with exceptions for trans people because the idea was the protections would otherwise apply
• 2) Her example of consequences of the bill

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The claim a transgender woman being paid less than a man could no longer bring a sex-discrimination claim for equal pay is highly misleading to an unfamiliar reader.

Earlier FWS rulings had already established that a transgender woman without a GRC could not bring a sex discrimination claim, but since they can bring a GR discrimination claim it is academic. They can still bring an equal pay claim, its just it is by GR, not sex. It changes nothing, which is the whole point of the GR protected characteristic.

All this ruling established is that a transgender woman with a GRC was in the same position. A transgender woman can't claim for sex discrimination against a male comparator, but can claim for GR discrimination. Exactly the same level of protection. Void if removed (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ViR on this point. Field's opinions now are no more significant than anyone else's (her opinions at the time of drafting might have been, but they weren't recorded). As a minimum, her views on the consequences of the bill need to go, as her statement is positively misleading. Tevildo (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is a majority for deleting the text I have specified above: Tevildo, Jonathan A Jones, Void if removed and I are in favour of deletion; Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and possibly Snokalok are in favour of keeping. So the text should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Now deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"Cisgender" again

The new section specificially on Field (which I'm neutral, at the moment, on keeping) used the word "cisgender" to describe women who are not trans. This is not supported by either source - The Guardian has biological women, the LBC has so-called "biological" women. Neither source reports what Field actually said. I've changed cisgender counterparts to "biological" counterparts - I appreciate this will not meet with universal approval, so we can discuss it here if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There’s a quote from Field in the Guardian source in which she uses the word ‘natal’. “We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.” I have seen ‘natal’ used like this before, in legal contexts, but I think it may be a bit obscure for some readers. But at least it’s a more neutral term than ‘cisgender’, which we should not be using here, because that would imply that this was the term used by Field. 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

YFNS has re-written the passage to use "women" alone, which I think will be acceptable to both sides. If we use "natal", we'll probably need to use quotes to emphasise that Field herself used the term, but I would stick with YFNS' latest revision. Tevildo (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Historians

I deleted the text: “and stating "Never has a UK government agency sought to effectively ban an entire class of people from using public toilets and changing rooms. Never has a UK government agency arrogated the power to define who can and cannot be members of gay and lesbian groups and sought to require those organisations to exclude a specific class of people as a matter of course."” because this is not only undue, but also, incorrect. This has since been reinstated by Snokalok. I don’t see any justification for keeping this. It is questionable whether there should be any mention of this letter at all, since no notable historians are mentioned in PinkNews as having signed the letter. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, A. 350 Historians is pretty notable, even if none of them are celebrities or whatever. B. It's a direct quote and the meat of their criticism. Removing it is simply not good article practice, without it there the reader is informed as to nothing. Even if you don't think it's correct, it's still the centerpoint of their criticism Snokalok (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

More than half of this article is given over to "responses". Political ones I can understand. Significant campaigners also. Every single petition and outcry? It turns into a WP:COATRACK eventually and a line needs to be drawn at some point.

This is single-sourced to Pink News who, I'm afraid, have a track record of being the single source for this sort of thing. If the only source for some online drama is Pink News I am increasingly of the opinion it is not notable enough to warrant inclusion at all. We don't decide if 350 or 1000, or 10,000 historians signing a google doc is notable - secondary coverage does, and if every serious outlet ignores it, its probably not actually that notable in comparison to the other responses that received broader coverage in multiple sources. We have ample coverage of much more significant responses from a diverse range of sources, I don't think we need this (WP:NOTNEWS) and certainly not the amount of space given over to it. Void if removed (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

You say that about pinknews but the UK media has a history of selectively going dark and only outlets like pinknews covering significant events. We’ve had trans rights protests of 35000 people happen to sound of complete or near complete media silence, while a protest of maybe 15 GCs gets headlines everywhere. Pinknews is a valuable answer to these gaps. As for coatrack, the response to and implementation of this ruling is by far the most significant part of the article both from a writing perspective and a historical perspective. Snokalok (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the case and the judgment.It is secondarily about the actual effects following from the judgment, such as new guidance issued by the EHRC and policy changes by sporting bodies. Protests and statements of support made by third parties are of tertiary importace at best. Currently the Response section is growing out of control: most of the subsections would benefit from a major trim, and the International subsection shuld probably just go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Counterpoint:

When the American Supreme Court ruled that slavery was all fine and lovely, what do you think was more worth committing to history - the particulars of their reasoning, or the broader impact and reaction outside of that courtroom? Snokalok (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a grotesquely offensive analogy that has nothing in common with this whatsoever, and secondly, go look at the balance in Dred Scott v. Sandford and you'll see that that's exactly how that article is balanced, with over a century and a half of perspective rather than a month's worth of breathless headlines. Void if removed (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We’re talking about court decisions that restrict the civil rights of minority groups - comparing one to another for the purposes of edit strategy is in fact entirely reasonable. Snokalok (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Snokalok: Please desist from making irrelevant comments which just disrupt the discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t irrelevant, this is in fact entirely relevant - we’re asking ourselves how much weight to give various sections of the article. I’m arguing that the impact and reception warrant far more article space than the particulars of the judgement itself, and citing Dred Scott as an example Snokalok (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

this is not only undue, but also, incorrect.- I'm confused.

• 1) That they said that is correct, they didn't not say it.
• 2) Has a UK government agency previously sought to ban a class of people from public bathrooms or argued that lesbian and gay associations should not allow trans people? Because if it hasn't, the statement is also just plainly correctly.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan A Jones that there should be a trim of the response section. So, in respect of the ‘historians’ letter, is there agreement that the whole of the text on this should be deleted? Or part? And if only a part should be deleted, which part? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about trimming

The Historians should be cut down to the first three sentences. The BMA should be cut down to the first sentence and the last sentence. Arts and culture shoould be deleted except for the last paragraph, which should be shortened and folded in with Academic and medical. International should go completely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've had a go at cutting down along these broad lines (but not exactly as stated above). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted and manually introduced your trims.

• 1) Other country's human rights officials condemning it is obviously due. As is Ireland's Equality Minister noting it did not apply to Ireland.[13]
• 2) The fact historians noted that a government agency has never previously done this is also due. Particularly the criticism of the EHRC guidance stating lesbian and gay orgs should bar trans members.[14]
• 3) BMA-wise, your trim was mostly good and I didn't change it much[15]
• 4) Arts and culture wise:[16]
  • 1) JKR's victory lap, having funded the case, was noted by multiple RS. Not all are cited, but it was heavily notable
  • 2) The "protect the dolls" campaign received extensive coverage in multiple RS and is also a notable response to this

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've re-added the unexplained removal of Sex Matters' response to the BMA motion. It is covered in two RS, and - as interveners - it is notable. Void if removed (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

1) I would be content with Jonathan A Jones’ version of the article, as at 19:46 today, 8 May 2025.

2) Regarding YFNS’s query about the text "Never has a UK government agency sought to effectively ban an entire class of people from using public toilets and changing rooms. Never has a UK government agency arrogated the power to define who can and cannot be members of gay and lesbian groups and sought to require those organisations to exclude a specific class of people as a matter of course."” – the problem is that this statement is literally correct – the EHRC has never said any such thing [17]– and our article is thoroughly misleading in implying that it has. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

From the EHRC guidance Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).[18]

So the EHRC has indeed taken it on itself to define who can and cannot be members of gay and lesbian groups and sought to require those organisations to exclude a specific class of people Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This: Never has a UK government agency arrogated the power to define who can and cannot be members of gay and lesbian groups and sought to require those organisations to exclude a specific class of people as a matter of course is just wrong.

It was clear prior to this judgement that a single-sex, same-sex oriented association of 25 or more people could exclude people of the opposite sex without a gender recognition certificate.

All the SC judgement confirmed is that they could exclude them with a GRC as well.

The thing about could though, is that if you choose to organise around those protected characteristics, it becomes must - or else it becomes unlawful discrimination, because you cannot apply such provisions to only some people and not others. Void if removed (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

And the EHRC said "should", not "could". Prior to this guidance, no UK government agency stated that gay and lesbian groups "should"/"must" exclude trans gays and lesbians. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say "stated" does it? It says sought to ban, and arrogated the power to define. These are bizarre and hyperbolic statements that don't reflect reality. The EHRC has clarified it's guidance in line with what the law has always been. That's all. This thing they say has "never before" happened, still hasn't.

You can't just say "some random historians with no connection to the case or the subject used some very strong language so it must be due". If they're saying things that are evidently not true and it's not had significant coverage and there's no obvious reason their opinion matters, then it's just another largely inconsequential opinionated intervention. Its not our job to put every little petition and open letter and list of protestations and breathless hyperbole in this article. Void if removed (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Its not our job to put every little petition and open letter and list of protestations and breathless hyperbole in this article - And yet you think the director of advocacy for sex matters (a quack who's called for "reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition" since she thinks they're all "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world"[19]) insulting the BMA is notable enough for inclusion...[20]

The simple fact remains that no government agency has ever said lesbian and gay associations "should not admit" trans gays and lesbians, until the EHRC guidance. If you can find a RS that disagrees/contradicts it, provide it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

With regard to your hyperbolic comments about Helen Joyce, please remember that WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as in articles. And the reason why the opinions of Sex Matters are particularly important here is because paragraph 35 of the judgment specifically singles out their intervention: We are particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that "sex", "man" and "woman" should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This shows an (admittedly common) misunderstanding of WP:BLPTALK. As it says: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. Editors are permitted to say negative things about people when it relates to reasonable content decisions (eg. problems with them that might impact their reliability), otherwise trying to explain why you think an author is unreliable would be a minefield that would have a chilling effect on raising potential issues. It matters in this case because due weight is relative, so potential issues with Joyce as a source (especially issues that imply that she might produce breathless hyperbole herself, which was the specific reason Void argued other sources were undue) are relevant for content decisions and are therefore not in violation of BLPTALK. And the quote in question is obviously inappropriate - it doesn't relate to their argument, it's just emotive table-pounding. --Aquillion (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a page about a supreme court ruling to which Sex Matters were a party, and one specifically commended by the court for their contributions. Their opinion and public statements in the aftermath are due. Trying to make it undue by making personal attacks about one of its directors is going nowhere frankly, and I think the multiply-sourced response from Sex Matters to the BMA junior doctors motion is of course due.

If you have a content dispute, make it, but this sort of thing is pretty indefensible. Void if removed (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me rephrase with a description nobody can cry personal attack about: A person with no expertise in medicine whatsoever, who has expressed the eugenicist/genocidal attitude that trans people are "damaged" and "a huge problem to a sane world" and that the solution is "reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition"[21], who has had testimony thrown out in court before since "she [even] lacked sufficient expertise for the exception to the opinion rule to apply"[22], is not a good source for whining about what an association of doctors said.

If we include every instance of "Sex matters said they don't like the people who criticized them", we'd double the length of the article. Of all their responses to responses, their ones to medical ones are the least due.

Especially given that the response currently in the article is empty nonsense: Sex Matters criticised the motion, saying that the doctors "misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court, which interprets the law rather than creating it or reflecting public opinion" - the doctors did not suggest the court creates laws or reflects public opinion, this is a strawman from somebody with genocidal attitudes. Completely undue nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Please contain your vitriol, it is unnecessary and not pertinent. And your point about "medical" is irrelevant - this is about law. The BMA resident doctor's subcommittee's opinion, while notable, has precisely zero weight or relevant expertise. A response from an actual party to the action reported in multiple RS pointing out they don't understand what they're talking about WRT the law is obviously relevant and due, and leaving it off misleads the reader with lack of WP:BALANCE. Void if removed (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The comment is unjustified and potentially defamatory, and should be redacted. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m with YFNS, for the most part these seem like overly severe cuts that I feel like only really target criticism of the court decision, and thus feel kinda POV to me Snokalok (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's especially shocking that this low-quality and highly inappropriate quote was restored in the midst of trying to trim quotes that take the opposite perspective. Per WP:QUOTEFARM: Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. See also the more general warning further up WP:QUOTES: Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. That quote doesn't convey any meaningful information to the reader, it's purely emotive table-pounding. Including a quote that illustrates someone's overall perspective when it isn't clear makes sense; including quotes that illustrate clear strands of arguments make sense. But "our ideological enemies are a disgrace!" does none of that, it's pure table-pounding, and isn't worth including unless there's substantial reason to think that the quote itself is historically significant. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced the quote with a pertinent one specifically addressing the content of the BMA subcommittee motion, seeing as a response from a major player in the actual ruling is obviously DUE, and it was reported in multiple RS.

Some other quotes for consideration, since you've raised that essay.

Four from Jolyon Maugham, who was refused permission to intervene:

• "[because] they knew from bitter experience what legal proceedings involve. They mean punishment beatings in the right-wing press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill off the organisation altogether."
• "without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused to accept their application to be heard. As a result, this appeal was left with not even one trans person giving evidence."
• "the decision to shut out from the hearing the people most closely affected by it made the decision weaker"
• "the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling."

Fourteen charities who were not party to the action:

• "confusion and a significant lack of clarity"
• "a legal framework that simply cannot uphold the dignity, protection and respect of trans people"
• "a genuine crisis for the rights, dignity and inclusion of trans people in the UK"

An open letter from historians with no relationship to the action, reported only in Pink News:

• "no government that orchestrates persecution against a minority group, as this government aims to, will be looked on kindly by history"
• "Never has a UK government agency sought to effectively ban an entire class of people from using public toilets and changing rooms. Never has a UK government agency arrogated the power to define who can and cannot be members of gay and lesbian groups and sought to require those organisations to exclude a specific class of people as a matter of course."

A motion from a subcommittee in the BMA:

• "the Supreme Court ruling defining the term 'woman' with respect to the Equality Act as being based on 'biological sex', which they refer to as a person who was at birth of the female sex, as reductive, trans and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical."
• "scientifically illiterate"

Equity, who have no legal expertise or relationship to the action:

• "deeply concerned"
• "stand in solidarity with those affected by the judgment and to defend trans women and men in the workplace and all walks of life."
• "urgently regrouping to ensure we defend and advocate for trans artists, and others affected."

An australian politician:

• "Human rights belong to everyone. Trans and gender diverse people should be safe, respected and legally recognised".

I'd be interested to know if you think any of the above present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias which as you have quoted that essay saying can be an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles Void if removed (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:QUACKS is justified, not defamatory, and the nicest way a normal person can describe somebody who'd make the statement: we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition,That’s for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world. If you read that statement and don't think "this is quackery" but "this is a totally normal thing for a person to say you can't call them a quack", that's a problem. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have negative opinions on numerous individuals who are mentioned on Wikipedia, including some whose articles I have edited. I do not use Wikipedia as a platform for my views; that is not what Wikipedia is for. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Let’s set out current proposals for trimming e.g.

(1) Trim the ‘historians’ comment to the first 3 sentences. This has been proposed by Jonathan A Jones, and I support this.

(2) Delete the ‘International’ section, which by definition is not relevant.

(3) I propose deleting the whole of the ‘Arts and culture’ section, because the comments are not directly related to the legal judgment. This is not supposed to be an article about the general issue of transgender rights.

(4) Other specific proposals? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

1) That would remove their comment about excluding transgender gays and lesbians and how it's the first time that's been done. Cutting that out is a NPOV violation.

2) which by definition is not relevant. - absolutely untrue. International reactions from relevant officials and bodies are obviously due. There is no policy or section of DUE or etc which says "reactions must be sourced to the country a thing happened in"

3) All of the sources in that section directly relate the responses to the ruling

These trimming proposals seem to mostly be based on WP:IDLI Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, these proposed cuts overwhelmingly strip away well sources and relevant criticism and popular movements against this ruling. Snokalok (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say, rather than both sides just trying to delete responses from "the enemy", we should try and decide some criteria for including a response, then assess the potential responses against them. My initial suggestions would be:

1. Participants (successful or unsuccessful) in the case itself (so we should include Maugham)
2. Political and legal organizations
3. Organizations that have an interest in the outcome

I don't think we should include individuals or groups of individuals that do not constitute a coherent organization and are not connected with the case, so I would lose both RTD et al and Rowling. Tevildo (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would take out the whole of Arts and culture and International on those broad grounds. These are pretty much just grab bags of random stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

They are not, they are both extensively covered by reliable and notable sources and bear weight to warrant inclusion. Hell, the protect the dolls campaign has its own wiki page. And most notably, these sections are overwhelmingly critical of the court decision. This feels like an incredibly POV position to take. Snokalok (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly it would be we good if we could find a way to convey this in summary style, rather than simply a dump of quotes. Void if removed (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These criteria are not helpful, as they effectively place the case in a vacuum, rendering it in the eyes of this article little more than a bureaucratic decision that had no effect outside of those directly involved and of course, the state. The result is that this article will say “The court decided X, the British govt and GC groups applauded, local LGBT groups politely said boo” which ignores the far greater and far more widespread sociopolitical impact this has had which has been given extensive documentation and coverage. Simply put, it would be like saying “We don’t really need to know the intl community’s or the world’s response to the Ukraine War” a decision which would severely unbalance the article in favor of Russia, just as this criteria here would unbalance the article in favor of GC views Snokalok (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think the entire "International" section should be deleted - it would come under "Political and legal organizations" - but neither would I fight too hard to keep it. The "socioeconomic" input can, in my view, be adequately covered by citing the revised EHCR guidelines and the responses of various sporting bodies, without needing to quote random collections of celebrities and non-celebrities to back that up. I'm sure we could dig up 300 Daily Mail readers who think the judgement doesn't go far enough and want to return to a pre-Wolfenden society: their opinions would be irrelevant, and, in my view, 300 random "historians" have no greater claim for inclusion. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue with your logic here is that by it, we can never cite the opinions of academics as relevant to anything, because there simply aren't enough of them. 300 random Daily Mail readers wouldn't carry weight because that's just, 300 random people, not relevant to anything. 300 academic historians is a massive number of people who are very relevant to this discussion. Saying that an open letter from (actually) 350 historians is not relevant is akin to saying that an open letter from 350 diplomats isn't relevant. Snokalok (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are academic historians"very relevant to this discussion" Theres nothing that inherently gives their views more weight here than those Daily Mail readers. The list includes a load of PhD candidates so it's not exactly just the most emminent, and. We broadly don't use theses from those people as RS for matters they are experts in so there's certainly no real reason to state their views on contentious matters in which they're not. More braodly I think that anything on reactions that is soley cited to Pink News on this topic should be trimmed unless there's specific consensus to include it (which would probably only come from producing other sources anyway per WP:EXIST).Golikom (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the historians are speaking to the novelty of the decision and how it is unprecedented in history which is within the discipline's prerogative. I've seen some suggest that only the first three sentences of it remain, but it is in my view that the rest are what are actually relevant and pertain to their expertise. Relm (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that it appears to radically misunderstand what the Supreme Court actually said. There ruling is quite explicit that their ruling not only is the law now but is in fact what UK law has been since the Equality Act 2010 was passed, not withstanding the fact that it was widely misunderstood for much of the last 15 years. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What the court held has no bearing on what I said in regards to the weight of Historians on a matter of historical precedent. Relm (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

the weight of Historians on a matter of historical precedent

I mean, this is a google doc open letter with a bunch of unverified signatories that includes some senior lecturers and professors, but also museum curators, PhD students and film studies lecturers and graphic designers and queer activists that has been reported only in Pink News.

You can't justify circularly that this hyperbole has any weight whatsoever by taking the hyperbole at face value. If there really was some matter of historical precedent, then weightier sources than this would exist. Non-experts expressing their discontent are not automatically due, no matter how strongly they express that discontent, especially when making ignorant legal argument about matters that the Supreme Court is the absolute authority on.

"Pink News reported that over 366 academics wrote an open letter to parliament condemning the ruling" is about the extent of coverage I would give this, and that's being generous. I don't think it should be included at all - without more coverage somewhere serious, this is an inconsequential low-effort protest letter, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING belongs here. Void if removed (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think @Telvido's suggestion here is very constructive, and it would be helpful that arguments against it would clearly suggest what their criteria for inclusion should be instead. I'll also note that while I think trimming Rowling's response is fine, noting that she partially funded the case is a pretty important detail to keep somewhere else in the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's noted in the Background section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So yes, I think trimming responses by consistent criteria applied even-handedly is reasonable, and could be done immediately with Tevildo's criteria, but I'd consider other options if they're presented. Maybe we'd add a fourth criterion about how much coverage and in what kind of RS a response would need for inclusion if it doesn't meet one of the first three criteria. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a fair approach as well Golikom (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m not opposed in principle to Tevildo’s criteria above.

Regarding Rowling, I would keep the reference to the funding, but lose the tweet.

I’m not clear what would constitute ‘Political and legal organizations’. We currently have comments from an Australian sex discrimination commissioner and a spokesperson for the Republic of Ireland’s Equality Minister. I don’t see how these representatives of foreign governments are relevant to a UK court ruling. In addition, after deciding whether the individuals/groups should be included, we also have to decide whether their comments are relevant, and provide information to our readers. At present, all the ‘International’ section does is tell readers that the UK does not rule the Republic of Ireland and Australia. I think we can assume that any reader of this article already knows that. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't support this criteria for the reasons outlined by Snokalok, I don't think we should include individuals or groups of individuals that do not constitute a coherent organization - means that we would take out all mention of mass protests, open letters, etc which multiple RS have covered. I agree with VIR that a summary style would be a better solution and GraziePrego that the material we have isn't undue. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really about mentioning events, my concern goes to who we should quote in the article. We should certainly mention the protests (although I'd be reluctant to characterize them as mass protests without corroboration from an unbiassed source), but I'm not convinced that we need to mention the historians' letter, especially as its wording suffers from the same - shall we say, deliberate exclusion of context - that Field's statements, discussed above, do. But my proposal is to establish some criteria rather than debating eachh individual quote. Tevildo (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My two cents would be that none of the content appears to be undue. I wouldn’t be in favour of cutting any of the content from the responses section, I don’t think it’s giving undue weight to anything, it all seems to be responses from relevant and notable enough groups/people. GraziePrego (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is majority support for the criteria proposed by Tevildo in his post of 22:56 11 May 2025 above. Are there any other comments about the ‘International’ section? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Responding to YFNS’s comment of 16:10 15 May 2025, above: my edit summary for my previous comment was intentionally very clear: majority support for Tevildo’s criteria?. YFNS is the only one who has disagreed with my assessment. As far as I can see, there is broad agreement from Tevildo, Golikom, Samuelshraga and myself. Those opposed are YFNS, Snokalok, and GraziePrego. The position of Void if removed is unclear. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think direct responses by those criteria are appropriate, especially as comes to sourcing quotes. I also think some sort of abbreviated summary of the wider reception would be good, but ideally I'd want this collated from multiple secondary sources to establish notability. The laundry list of lengthy quotes from anyone with an opinion isn't a good approach to that (especially the lengthy and inaccurate hyperbole from the historians which really hasn't had notable coverage) and just ends up swamping the article. It is worth summarising that some people strongly objected to the outcome, and if there's a good secondary source summarising the wider response by now then that would be ideal (rather than cobbling it together from multiple sources), but I admit I've not checked if such exists. Void if removed (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have ever actually disagreed with Void if removed, who makes characteristically clear and well reasoned arguments. There's certainly a consensus for cutting down the random "various people disagreed with the supreme court" statements, though understandably there is more variation on exact preferences for what the alternative should be. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

A simple majority is not consensus. If you truly support this criteria, open an RFC, but you cannot say that we’re implementing this criteria simply because you have one more editor voting yes Snokalok (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reordered things a little. I have placed the responses from those actually involved in the case up front, rather than buried throughout the responses (FWS, ScotGov, EHRC, Sex Matters, LGBA and Amnesty). I have placed FWS first, as the ones who actually won, and ScotGov second, as the ones who lost. I don't see any reason why the immediate reaction of all those involved isn't by far the most important response.

I have also created a section further down for "Impacts" for the direct impact of the ruling, ie not just people complaining about it. This right now has the EHRC statutory guidance, and sports bodies enforcing the female category. I'm assuming this will grow. This separates EHRC's immediate response to the ruling, to subsequent implementation.

Having now done this we can see that sandwiched between the two are seventeen paragraphs of lengthy quotes and complaints from people of various notability, some given far too much space. This part contains a lot of what WP:QUOTES warns of, and needs a trim and summarisation. Lots of the responses are notable, but they don't need quotes from everybody, especially where those quotes are overlong. Void if removed (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I like this approach. I have moved a couple more points from Responses to Impact. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)