If they’ve got a gender recognition certificate I don’t really see the issue. They aren’t easy to get. No one’s going through all that to do anything nefarious. Just leave them be
[removed]
“Adult, human female”. Surely it doesn’t need the SC to figure that out?
[removed]
Well they will either get it right or get it wrong. Chances are they will get it wrong and therefore solve nothing.
To be clear, the Supreme Court is not going to “rule on definition of a woman.”
> Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
They are specifically being asked to confirm or reject the Court of Session’s ruling on *part* of the test for a “woman” (and thus “man”) under the Equality Act. This is a court case about interpreting a specific part of a specific law. We should be careful about expanding the definition it comes up with to other contexts. Legal terms have legal meanings. Some of them also have broader meanings. We shouldn’t conflate them.
I’m also not really sure why the BBC is reporting *today* on a case that is being handed down next Wednesday.
—–
Anyway. This is a fun case. The anti-trans group For Women Scotland is suing the Scottish Government to protect men’s rights. Just to be absolutely clear where they stand – their underlying *legal* argument is that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is illegal because it *discriminates against men*.
The case is about trying to *ban* trans-inclusive spaces. It is also about repealing the Gender Recognition Act for all practical purposes.
1. In general, if someone wants to treat people differently based on who they are, they can.
2. The Equality Act says that certain people, in certain situations, cannot discriminate against people based on certain protected characteristics; in general, someone offering a service to the public cannot treat men and women differently.
3. The EA however has some exceptions to that rule, including providing single-sex spaces; situations where discrimination of the basis of sex is allowed.
FWS’s original argument is that *if* anyone treats trans women as women, allowing them into their single-sex spaces, those aren’t actually single-sex spaces (because trans women aren’t women). If they’re not single-sex spaces, the exception doesn’t apply. If the exception doesn’t apply, then keeping any man out is unlawful discrimination.
They are trying to outlaw trans-inclusive spaces; if you are someone covered by the Equality Act, and you treat men and women differently, you *must* exclude trans people.
And they already won this case in Scotland – the Scottish Government didn’t appeal – over most trans people.
But that wasn’t enough. So now they’re suing over a definition of “woman” which includes the handful of trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates.
FWS are arguing that a GRC, which legally changes a person’s legal gender *and* legal sex, does not actually change their legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
Which, of course, completely undermines the point of the Gender Recognition Act. If it changes your legal sex, but your legal sex isn’t actually relevant to much…
———————–
And, of course, this is all about letting people harass anyone they think looks different; anyone not conforming to traditional gender rules.
How are you supposed to know if the person using public toilets, or changing rooms, or otherwise using a particular service is a “man” or a “woman”? A passport won’t tell you (the anti-trans groups successfully sued over that). Now not even a printed out birth certificate will tell you. People have no way to prove their “Equality-Act-purposes” sex.
The only thing anyone covered by the Equality Act can do is exclude *anyone* who they suspect or have been told *might* be trans – i.e. anyone who isn’t gender-conforming. Because if they let a single “wrong” person in they can be sued (for not letting others in). Meanwhile they cannot be sued for *excluding* people because “being gender-non-conforming” isn’t a protected characteristic.
[removed]
[removed]
It absolutely does. I had a devastating miscarriage last September and I had to be admitted and have various procedures with only gas and air which has traumatized me. If I was an American woman I would of been left to either hemorrhage to death or develop sepsis.
We all have to stand together and protect each other and each others rights.
I’m just so sick and tired right now of constantly being punched about right now.
I will always stand to protect everyone’s rights rights. Because if they come for one of us they will come for all. Honestly I’m just tired of the hate in the world right now.
I’m 40 years old and honest as a child we went through the troubles in Ireland and in retrospect I don’t think it was as dangerous back then as it feels now.
I’m just so sick of hate why can’t we just accept each other it’s all so tiresome.
With regard to the case itself, it seems pretty straightforward to me that the intent of the GRC is to be a legal sex change. Whether or not you agree that one should be able to do that (which obviously these campaigners don’t) is a different matter – that is the law of the land and there’s literally no point in a GRC if that isn’t what it does.
The wider issue is a tricky one because there is no simple right answer. Some things make more sense by identification, some by physical appearance, and some by original sex.
For example you shouldn’t be able to participate in women’s sports with a male body, however genuine your identification, because it violates the entire purpose of having a separate class in the first place. Maternity leave can obviously only apply to a physical woman who can actually give birth, identification is irrelevant. Protective spaces like abuse shelters for female abuse victims are less effective if people who look like men are allowed in.
[removed]
[removed]
Couldn’t we just stick to calling a woman a “woman” a man a “man” a trans woman a “trans woman” and a trans man a “trans man”? And fit the new “trans” terminology into the law where needed? I feel like it’s these new terms that have now created a need to define what each person is, but I feel the term trans already does this.
I could point out that trying to have some narrow definition for women will be used to undermine women’s rights, but at this point it’s clear that anti-trans fanatics are more than willing to sacrifice everything if it means they can harm trans people.
14 comments
If they’ve got a gender recognition certificate I don’t really see the issue. They aren’t easy to get. No one’s going through all that to do anything nefarious. Just leave them be
[removed]
“Adult, human female”. Surely it doesn’t need the SC to figure that out?
[removed]
Well they will either get it right or get it wrong. Chances are they will get it wrong and therefore solve nothing.
To be clear, the Supreme Court is not going to “rule on definition of a woman.”
To quote [their website](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042), the question before them is:
> Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
They are specifically being asked to confirm or reject the Court of Session’s ruling on *part* of the test for a “woman” (and thus “man”) under the Equality Act. This is a court case about interpreting a specific part of a specific law. We should be careful about expanding the definition it comes up with to other contexts. Legal terms have legal meanings. Some of them also have broader meanings. We shouldn’t conflate them.
I’m also not really sure why the BBC is reporting *today* on a case that is being handed down next Wednesday.
—–
Anyway. This is a fun case. The anti-trans group For Women Scotland is suing the Scottish Government to protect men’s rights. Just to be absolutely clear where they stand – their underlying *legal* argument is that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is illegal because it *discriminates against men*.
The case is about trying to *ban* trans-inclusive spaces. It is also about repealing the Gender Recognition Act for all practical purposes.
1. In general, if someone wants to treat people differently based on who they are, they can.
2. The Equality Act says that certain people, in certain situations, cannot discriminate against people based on certain protected characteristics; in general, someone offering a service to the public cannot treat men and women differently.
3. The EA however has some exceptions to that rule, including providing single-sex spaces; situations where discrimination of the basis of sex is allowed.
FWS’s original argument is that *if* anyone treats trans women as women, allowing them into their single-sex spaces, those aren’t actually single-sex spaces (because trans women aren’t women). If they’re not single-sex spaces, the exception doesn’t apply. If the exception doesn’t apply, then keeping any man out is unlawful discrimination.
They are trying to outlaw trans-inclusive spaces; if you are someone covered by the Equality Act, and you treat men and women differently, you *must* exclude trans people.
And they already won this case in Scotland – the Scottish Government didn’t appeal – over most trans people.
But that wasn’t enough. So now they’re suing over a definition of “woman” which includes the handful of trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates.
FWS are arguing that a GRC, which legally changes a person’s legal gender *and* legal sex, does not actually change their legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
Which, of course, completely undermines the point of the Gender Recognition Act. If it changes your legal sex, but your legal sex isn’t actually relevant to much…
———————–
And, of course, this is all about letting people harass anyone they think looks different; anyone not conforming to traditional gender rules.
How are you supposed to know if the person using public toilets, or changing rooms, or otherwise using a particular service is a “man” or a “woman”? A passport won’t tell you (the anti-trans groups successfully sued over that). Now not even a printed out birth certificate will tell you. People have no way to prove their “Equality-Act-purposes” sex.
The only thing anyone covered by the Equality Act can do is exclude *anyone* who they suspect or have been told *might* be trans – i.e. anyone who isn’t gender-conforming. Because if they let a single “wrong” person in they can be sued (for not letting others in). Meanwhile they cannot be sued for *excluding* people because “being gender-non-conforming” isn’t a protected characteristic.
[removed]
[removed]
It absolutely does. I had a devastating miscarriage last September and I had to be admitted and have various procedures with only gas and air which has traumatized me. If I was an American woman I would of been left to either hemorrhage to death or develop sepsis.
We all have to stand together and protect each other and each others rights.
I’m just so sick and tired right now of constantly being punched about right now.
I will always stand to protect everyone’s rights rights. Because if they come for one of us they will come for all. Honestly I’m just tired of the hate in the world right now.
I’m 40 years old and honest as a child we went through the troubles in Ireland and in retrospect I don’t think it was as dangerous back then as it feels now.
I’m just so sick of hate why can’t we just accept each other it’s all so tiresome.
With regard to the case itself, it seems pretty straightforward to me that the intent of the GRC is to be a legal sex change. Whether or not you agree that one should be able to do that (which obviously these campaigners don’t) is a different matter – that is the law of the land and there’s literally no point in a GRC if that isn’t what it does.
The wider issue is a tricky one because there is no simple right answer. Some things make more sense by identification, some by physical appearance, and some by original sex.
For example you shouldn’t be able to participate in women’s sports with a male body, however genuine your identification, because it violates the entire purpose of having a separate class in the first place. Maternity leave can obviously only apply to a physical woman who can actually give birth, identification is irrelevant. Protective spaces like abuse shelters for female abuse victims are less effective if people who look like men are allowed in.
[removed]
[removed]
Couldn’t we just stick to calling a woman a “woman” a man a “man” a trans woman a “trans woman” and a trans man a “trans man”? And fit the new “trans” terminology into the law where needed? I feel like it’s these new terms that have now created a need to define what each person is, but I feel the term trans already does this.
I could point out that trying to have some narrow definition for women will be used to undermine women’s rights, but at this point it’s clear that anti-trans fanatics are more than willing to sacrifice everything if it means they can harm trans people.
Comments are closed.