Because the stakes were high
The BBC on the ruling and its consequences:
The Supreme Court case was brought by a group called For Women Scotland. It wanted to overturn Scottish legislation which said 50% of members on public boards should be women – and trans women were included in their definition.
The group lost its case in Scotland’s highest court but appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The case was heard towards the end of last year.
“What we wanted was clarity in the law – when something is described as a single-sex service, a single-sex space, that this relates to biology,” Susan Smith from For Women Scotland told the BBC.
We wanted things for women to be for women.
Over time the arguments over how a woman is defined had become increasingly angry, bitter and divided, because the stakes were high for all involved.
For transgender people, who say they often face victimisation and harassment, the battles were rooted in attempts to win better legal protection.
No they weren’t, not really. They were rooted in determination to take everything away from women. Every single thing.
I can agree that that may have stemmed from the “trans women are women” dogma, but I don’t really care. If trans women really were women they would have enough empathy for women to get why we can’t just ignore the physical realities. Instead they attack us in every way possible and do their level best to take everything that’s ours. We’re not the instigators here.
Crucially, the ruling provides a clear framework for what equality laws mean. The EHRC says it is “working at pace” to update its guidance, and expects that to be ready by the summer.
It has already made it clear that if a single-sex space, like a toilet or changing room, is women-only, that means biological males who identify as women should not use it. It says instead that trans people should use their “powers of advocacy” to campaign for third spaces, such as unisex toilets. And it has said it will pursue the NHS if it does not follow the latest ruling.
Health service guidance on single-sex wards currently says that “trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation, the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”. Currently this allows trans women to be offered beds on women-only wards. The NHS says its policy is under review.
It was always a horrible policy.
For trans people there is also a lot of uncertainty. They will have been used to using spaces which correspond to their gender identity – changing that may be difficult and, for some, frightening.
Now think about how women have been feeling all this time.

They could have been doing exactly this, all this time, but no; it was more important to
A campaign based on lies and intimidation using both bad strategy and bad tactics. Who’d a thunk?
There have been instances of a third space offer, and all have been rejected. I wonder why?
A third space would be insufficient, as there is also a need for a fourth space. Can’t expect trans women to put themselves at risk of violence by having to pee/shower/change alongside trans men, can we?
And that still leaves the Enbees, the Asexuals, and the rest of the QUILTBAG with nowhere to pee …
*Sigh* And of course I still managed to post it in the wrong thread…