Court ruling on ‘woman’ at odds with UK Equality Act aim, says ex-civil servant

7 comments

1. Well at least they can change the act to use the correct language now and there should be less confusion.

2. As anyone with a functioning brain could clearly see: the Supreme Court ruling was fucking insane and used interpretations of the Equality Act that only someone intentionally trying to hurt trans people could possibly defend.

3. They *do* still have the same rights as biological men and women. They cannot be discriminated against in hiring processes, payment of wages, etc. They just are no longer allowed to enter spaces or take part in activities reserved for biological sexes that don’t match their own, which the Equality Act was somehow contorted to allow previously with GRCs. I really don’t see what the *need* is for a man to have access to a women’s rape centre, for example.

   As Trevor Philips recently said, the Equality Act offers protections against discrimination for *all -* and trans people *still* have those protections *-* it just has *nothing* to do with emotions. Someone not agreeing that you are what you say are is *not* discrimination. The Act was never meant to be a licence to do whatever you pleased because you identified as something, it was there to stop people from discriminating against you in the workplace, etc. It still does that. All that’s happened is that some ambiguity has been removed, i.e. with a “woman” now being defined as “someone who is born biologically female”.

4. The ruling is at odds with the *text* of the Equality Act, never mind the aim.

   But that didn’t stop the Supreme Court.

   The Supreme Court ruling relies on the fact that “sex” in the EA means “registered at birth sex”, it means that everywhere, and that trans people cannot change their “sex.”

   The EA defines a trans person as someone who:

   > …is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

   The EA says that trans people can reassign their sex. The Supreme Court says that trans people cannot reassign their sex under the EA.

   Do you want to know how they get around this?

   > The critical process on which the [above] characteristic depends involves a change in physiological or other attributes of what must necessarily be biological sex; but there is nothing to suggest that undergoing such a process changes a person’s sex as a matter of law. It does not. Indeed, a full process of medical transition to the opposite gender without obtaining a GRC has no effect on the person’s sex as a matter of law.

   Their argument is that this specific definition of “sex” (when defining a trans person) is really about changing biology. Not law. So they can ignore it.

   They then go on to rule that the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act must be based on biology, not law (because it refers to things like pregnancy).

   Then there’s the whole “paragraph 28” exception problem, where the explanatory notes explicitly state that some trans women should be allowed in women’s single-sex spaces as a general rule, whereas the Supreme Court’s interpretation is that this should never be possible. They bring it up, but just say “We can see nothing to support the” conclusion that this obviously undermines their argument. No proof. No reasoning. Just “we cannot see it, sorry.”

   There’s also the really fun part where they say:

   > We can see no good reason why the legislature should have intended that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be regarded and treated differently under the EA 2010 depending on whether or not they possess a [GRC]…

   Yep. The Supreme Court couldn’t come up with any idea why Parliament might have wanted someone to be treated differently because they have acquired a GRC. Despite Parliament legislating a process by which they could get a GRC. And setting out a whole bunch of implications of getting a GRC.

5. I am *enjoying* watching people assure everyone that the justices of the Supreme Court don’t know how to interpret the law of the land.

   You look hilarious.

6. I thought the whole point of the ruling is “what is wrong with the equality act” that it is somewhat ambiguous what sex and gender means, and the Supreme Court is just ruling how the equality act should be interpreted.

   Which means if the government thinks the problem is big enough they could amend the equality act to make it clear what sort of protections trans people should be afforded.

   And obviously the Labour government is a bit of a wuss when it comes to this topic and is unlikely going to do anything about it, hence it’s a big loss for trans people which is sad.

   But that doesn’t change the point that the equality act is poorly drafted in terms of protection and rights that trans people should be afforded. Also doesn’t change the fact that this whole debate has been stirred up by transphobes for their own agenda.

   So supreme court is just pointing it out. Now it’s just a matter on whether there’s enough political will in the government to right that wrong.

7. In all honesty I am sick of hearing about such a fringe issue. There such a small number of trans people that it should not be talking up this much of the conversation.

   I also feel like people on both sides have let emotion get in the way of finding common sense solutions to each others relevant concerns.

Comments are closed.