Sally gave a talk at the Women's Declaration International conference on 26 July about the origins of the lesbian intervention and why it was so essential to the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case at the Supreme Court. Watch here .

Someone can be simultaneously man and woman according to UK Gov Schrödinger’s cat was famously both dead and alive. Since 2004, we have had a situation where some people are recognised by the government as both male and female. Simultaneously. Schrödinger would have had a field day. Approximately 8,500 people in the UK possess a gender recognition certificate (GRC), issued in line with the Gender Recognition Act. This grants them a certificated sex which is the opposite to their biological sex. This allows a male with a GRC to do many things as a “woman” (and vice versa). But the Gender Recognition Act itself contains exceptions for certain purposes. A woman with a GRC is still to be treated as female when it comes to succession and hereditary peerages. (Of course! We can’t have women sex-changing their way into inheriting their younger brothers’ entitlement). Possession of a GRC does not change a male’s status as “father” of his children; does not prevent him from being identified as the perpetrator of a sex-specific crime such as rape; and does not make him a “woman” for gender-affected sports. So even within the terms of a GRC, the holder is treated as both sexes at once. A male is a “woman” when he gets married, but remains the father of his children. He is a “woman” when he is buried, but a man  if his deceased father has a hereditary peerage to hand down. Men with a GRC have also insisted they are “women” when it comes to matters of discrimination, and women’s rights to single-sex services. They have demanded entry to women’s hospital wards, rape crisis centres, changing rooms and hostel accommodation. And of course, toilets. On the back of those demands, men who do not hold a GRC but who claim any manner of “trans” identities have also demanded entry into women’s services and spaces. The recent Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case on the meaning of sex  in the Equality Act 2010 (EA) brings a welcome return of clarity, common sense and scientific reality to this state of affairs. The ruling unequivocally states that the words “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA refer to biological sex, in all circumstances, without exception. The judgment protects women’s and lesbians’ spaces and services from intrusion by males. Importantly, it also leaves intact all three of the protections for trans-identifying people, whether or not they possess a GRC. They are protected – and may not be discriminated against – on the basis of their biological sex, their sexual orientation, and their gender reassignment status. The rest of us mere mortals, who do not claim a different gender-identity, have only the first two protections. The clear legal definition in the FWS ruling is immensely important. Women are always, and only, biological women. And men are biological men, and no amount of magical thinking can make the opposite true. Or can it? Unfortunately, the FWS ruling is not the end of the story. It only considered how people who have acquired a GRC are affected by the Equality Act. But it does not address other legal situations where the falsification of someone’s sex might have an impact. One particular cause for concern relates to the searching of a detainee who claims to be “transgender”. Female police and prison officers have been forced to strip search men who claimed to be "women" on the grounds that this protects the prisoner’s dignity. This has not been restricted to men with a GRC, but require only that the detainee claims to be “trans”. No thought was given to the dignity of the hapless women officers, some of whom have been extremely distressed or traumatised. For some years, and despite the absence of any legislative authorisation, people have been allowed to falsify the sex marker on their driving licence, NHS record, bank account or passport, even if they do not have a GRC. Yes, you read that correctly – a man can be male as a matter of biology, certificate (or rather the lack of one) and law, yet nevertheless have a range of ID documents declaring him to be a “female”. Such instances of sex falsification create a massive safeguarding risk – how do you protect women from a male sex offender if all his documents now show him to be a woman named Isla? Even though the FWS ruling clarified that we have the right to lesbian- and women-only spaces and services, there will be instances where it is extremely difficult in practice to exclude men who present documents saying they are “female”. Sex-falsified documents also have implications for law enforcement. How do you identify a male fraudster if he has documents stating he is a woman? Sex falsification can also be life-threatening for the person concerned, if the doctors treating him don’t know her or his biological sex. Many symptoms and drug doses are different for men and for women. At least one baby has died because medics treating his mother for unexplained abdominal pains believed she was a man, so didn’t run any of the checks related to pregnancy until it was too late. There has never been any legal right to self-ID as a different sex in the UK. That was clarified in an earlier FWS case in 2022. And this year, the Supreme Court ruling shone a light on the ridiculous concept that it is possible to “change sex”, even on paper. Although it only considered the EA, its logic reinforces the case for an end to sex-falsification across the board. Yet there is not a single type of documentation that has not been corrupted by allowing anyone who wishes to obtain documents which falsely record their sex. The UK and Scottish governments must urgently take action to withdraw all such documents, and reissue the holders with ones that accurately record their sex. Until that is done, those falsified documents will provide cover for the many organisations who are refusing to implement the law, or only doing so reluctantly. 'We asked', they will no doubt cry, 'but Freddie had a driving licence showing he was a woman. How could we possibly have known otherwise?' And even organisations genuinely wanting to provide single-sex facilities will be faced with a situation where it is all but impossible to implement. Thus we will end up not only with Schrödinger's sex, but also with Schrödinger's rights - in a situation where we have an unequivocal right to single-sex and lesbian spaces and services . And at the same time we are denied them.

JK Rowling - still as Harry Potter's beloved mother - at the London premiere of the 6th part of the saga 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince', November 16, 2009 Photo Michael Melia / Alamy Stock Photo Polish journalist Krystyna Romanowska has published a long article in Polish magazine Warehouse, about JK Rowling's involvement in supporting women's rights. She spoke to quite a few UK lesbians, including Elaine and Sally from Lesbian Persistence. The article's in Polish, so here's also a google-translated pdf . (With apologies for Google's grammatical and stylistic errors!)

Police Scotland were consulting organisations on their new approach to collecting and recording data on sex and gender identity. (We tweeted a long thread about it here ). They've got the general idea that they are separate concepts and that sex has to be accurately reported. But they wanted feedback on the wording of their proposed questions. Which were to ask about 1. Sex. Right idea, but none of their proposals for the wording of the question are acceptable. 2. Gender identity. Probably good idea to ask about this for statistical purposes. It could be useful for us to be able to analyse how many suspects think they're some version of "trans". But it's difficult to find an appropriate wording. 3. Whether the person considers themselves to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. We don't agree with asking this question at all - the PC of GR is an objective measure as set out in the Equality Act. Not a subjective notion of what someone thinks - and many people don't understand the EA definition anyway. Our full response is here

We wrote to Citizens Advice Scotland to support their stance on the provision of single sex facilities in line with the FWS ruling.

On Tuesday 13 May, the National published a comment piece by Dylan Hamilton whinging about the Scottish Parliament having provided suitable toilet facilities for her to use. We wrote to the editor, to correct the many pieces of misinformation her account contained. Our letter was published on 14 May, though well buried in the online version. Sir Your comment piece "I work at Holyrood - how toilets policy affects me" is full of misinformation. Dylan Hamilton claims that the Scottish Parliament is following "guidance they are not legally obligated to". This is simply wrong. The guidance, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is simply a restatement of the law, as clarified by the Supreme Court. The court did not use the law "to interpret whatever they wanted from it". Instead, it analysed the Equality Act virtually line by line to establish what the law actually says.  Nor is it true to say that the mixed toilet facility is a "secret third thing" and that people who identify as trans will be outed by using it. This is not a "trans-only" toilet. but can be used by literally anybody. I dare say your correspondent's colleagues (amongst others) will be more than happy to use it as well.  Such third spaces have existed for years in many buildings, in Edinburgh and elsewhere. They are a compassionate solution which allows everyone their rights and does not insist that anyone is forced to use a facility which does not align with the way they feel about themself.   What this article - and much of the commentary in the media - demonstrates is that the trans-movement does not want a world in which everyone is provided for, but one in which their insistence that everyone play along with their claim that they are literally members of the opposite sex takes precedence.  I can, to an extent, understand the howls of outrage - the lie that people can change sex has been widely adopted for many years, mostly at the expense of women and lesbians. As a result, trans-identifying men and women have become so used to imposing their preferences on the world that it will take a period of adjustment to find their rights do not trump everyone else's.  Over the last ten years or so, women and lesbians have increasingly been denied the rights to our own spaces, free from males no matter how they identify. The judgment has confirmed that right always existed, even if it has been ignored. It also clearly reiterated the rights of people who identify as trans to be fully protected against discrimination. They have lost nothing, but their dominance. Regards Sally Wainwright Lesbian Persistence.

Clarity is not division. It’s the duty of elected parliamentarians, and especially of those in government, to uphold the rule of law, not to try to undermine the authority of the highest court in the land. MPs should be welcoming a ruling that makes crystal clear that lesbians, women and trans people all have our own, inalienable rights. Those rights are not in conflict, but are separately protected by the Equality Act. “What is divisive is the trans lobby stirring up fear and alarm, particularly amongst vulnerable gender-questioning young people, by misrepresenting the meaning of the ruling. It is inappropriate for MPs to support such statements. They should be providing reassurance where it is needed instead. Read More

Sally gave a talk to WDI on the court ruling and its implications for lesbians and other women. Watch it here .

The UK government is currently introducing a Data Bill which threatens to undermine the For Women Scotland ruling that sex is biological. Image from Sex Matters website The Bill will establish an “information gateway” providing information about individuals’ identity and other data. It would be a great idea, if only the system was going to provide an accurate record of one of the most basic facts of all – an individual’s sex. But the current plan will, inexplicably, allow the falsification of sex in this new system. Once that false record has been created, it will be almost impossible to prove someone’s actual sex, for example to prevent a man from gaining access to lesbian associations or women-only services. The benefits of the system are that people will be able to use it to prove facts about themselves, which are no more than absolutely required. Someone wanting to prove that she was over 65 to obtain a senior rail card, for example, would be able to use it to confirm that she meets the age criterion, without also providing additional data such as her date of birth or even her age, or her address. In many ways this will help protect people’s privacy and will make proving personal data a great deal quicker and simpler than at present.  Public authorities, such as the passport office, banks or the NHS etc, will be able to share people’s personal information (with their consent) to create this digital ID. But, and it is a very big but, the system will draw on information from organisations that have already allowed people to falsify their sex. For several years now, DVLA, the NHS, and even the passport office, have allowed people to register the wrong sex on their documents, on the basis of self-ID, despite there being no legal authority for this. The ability to wrongly record sex on official documents has not been limited to people with a GRC who have a certificated sex that is opposite to their birth sex, but extends to those who self-ID. All that has been required in many cases was a letter from a doctor. The recent judgment in the For Women Scotland case, specifically mentioned data collection (Paras 237 – 244), and the essential need to accurately record someone's biological sex, distinct from their gender identity. This is, partly, because accurate data must be collected to help fight the disadvantages experienced by women. However, as currently envisaged, the new system will simply accept the wrong information already recorded. This will have serious implications for lesbian associations. As the architect of the lesbian intervention in the For Women Scotland case, I was very pleased that our right to lesbian-only spaces was resoundingly recognised by the judgment. It is clear that we have the legal right to exclude all males from our lesbian associations, such as Lesbian Persistence. However, it will be completely impossible for us to implement that right if we are denied any possibility of establishing someone's actual sex, rather than their fantasy one. A digital ID would have been an excellent opportunity to make this process simple, and allow us to protect our organisations and spaces.    If someone we suspect is a man asks to join Lesbian Persistence, what are we to do? One answer, if the UK possessed accurate identity documents, would be for us to simply ask to see their digital ID, and to make this a condition of entry. However, this new national system will systematically allow people to falsify their sex, so will not be trustworthy. Policing our newly confirmed right to freedom of association was always going to be problematic. Unfortunately, the new legislation, as currently envisaged, will move that bar from being difficult to becoming completely impossible. It is clear that another legal challenge would need to be mounted, wasting yet more time and money from both women and the government.  As things stand, it seems the Government is intent on introducing self-ID through the back door.   For more information see the Sex Matters website – they’ve been running a great campaign, which you might want to support. Sally Wainwright

Talk about Lesbian Persistence , and the WDI book, Women's Right, Gender Wrongs: the global impact of gender-identity ideology. Watch here

Celebrating with fellow lesbians outside the Supreme Court This blog looks at why the lesbian intervention was so important to the FWS ruling, and what it means for lesbians. The case was to decide whether or not men with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should be considered “women” for purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The Act protects women because of our sex, and lesbians because of our sexual orientation. (It had been established in an earlier case that men without a GRC are not “women”.) First though, a couple of my favourite quotes from the judgment, to give you a flavour of it. The first came directly from our intervention, in which our wonderful KC, Karon Monaghan had argued that a lesbian is not attracted to male bodies. And added, for good measure, “Nor is she sexually attracted to certificates.” The Supreme Court, in a phrase I bet it never thought it would use, said at para 204 “𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝘅𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲.” Second, we had pointed out that allowing men with a GRC to be counted as lesbians, meant (under the terms of the EA) that we could not have clubs or associations with more than 25 people in them. The Court’s response at para 207 is priceless. “𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼, that associations can restrict membership to less than 25 members so that they are not an “association” for the purposes of Part 7. It is also impractical.” 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗯𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁? In making their decision, the judges considered core provisions of the Equality Act. The first was whether the EA could be interpreted to mean that “sex” referred to certificated sex (ie, as conferred by a GRC) rather than biological sex. Answer: It can only mean biological sex. The second concluded that the EA recognises people with the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment (including those with a GRC) as distinct groups, gives separate protection to each, and does not conflate gender reassignment and sex. The third related to sexual orientation. (paras 204-9). The judges did not accept that a biological male could ever become a “same-sex attracted female”, which would have been the effect of saying that “sex” was certificated rather than biological. It’s worth quoting the entire paragraph. The judges completely accepted the argument we had made in the lesbian submission. para.206 ... 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 (𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰) 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘹. 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘪𝘧 𝘢 𝘎𝘙𝘊 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 9(1) 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘙𝘈 2004 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘈 2010, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 (𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦) 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘎𝘙𝘊 (𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦) 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 12 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 (𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘎𝘙𝘊 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯) 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘴. So allowing men with a GRC to count as lesbians would make homosexuality meaningless! The judgment was also concerned that using certificated sex would allow males into lesbian associations. The lesbian argument was not the only reason, of course, that the judges found in favour of FWS, but it was a major contributory factor, and I think it’s fair to say, made the case unloseable. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗯𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀? A crucial part of the judgment is that having a GRC does not give men any more rights under the EA than men who self-ID. If the judgment had gone the other way, we would have been legally obliged to allow men with a GRC into our spaces. But, as we’re not allowed to ask for a GRC, in practice we would have had to admit all self-IDing men. The most important points for lesbians are: - men cannot be lesbians - men have no right to enter women’s or lesbian space - having a GRC does not give a man access to women’s or lesbian spaces (including changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, prisons etc) - no men can apply for jobs or other posts designated as reserved for women - lesbians have the right to meet without men For lesbians this means we are allowed to form lesbian-only clubs and associations (such as Lesbian Persistence) and maintain our boundaries. Lesbian-only websites or pages can exclude all men, with or without a GRC. So you can organise your lesbian discos, book clubs, walking groups or sewing circles, and advertise them openly without the fear of being forced to allow some men to enter. NB This does not stop a service or a dating site from including men who masquerade as “lesbians”, but it should describe itself differently, to make clear that it’s a mixed provision. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 The judgment also demolishes the idea that data collection should be done on the basis of certificated rather than biological sex. It says that doing so would “impede clarity of analysis of the different needs of groups with different protected characteristics”. Although it doesn’t mention sexual orientation in this section, it would also mean that lesbian or gay categories should only relate to lesbian women or gay men, and says that data collection about “trans people” should not include people who are not trans. Which would effectively remove the categories of “LGBT+” You can watch the hearing, or the judgment, or read the case here Sally Wainwright 2025

Today Arbroath. Tomorrow the world! To celebrate Lesbian Visibility Week members from Dundee, Angus and Aberdeen organised a meet up. We'll be having other meetings elsewhere in Scotland over the summer too..