smokingboot (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
smokingboot) wrote2025-04-17 01:52 pm
smokingboot) wrote2025-04-17 01:52 pm
Of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in the UK has decided that with regard to the Equality Act 2010, the term 'woman' is based on biological classification. Cue kerfuffle and, got to be said, some pretty irresponsible reportage. At least the Law Gazette was clear and to the point:
Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed, said the language of the EA in its ‘context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man”…mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man’. *
In the UK, sex and gender reassignment are two separate characteristics, both have protections by law. But the argument has been that the words 'woman' and 'man' in the EA2010 also applies to trans people who have Gender Recognition Certificates. This has been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court judges, who hold that within the context of the law, 'sex' means a biological classification, not a certification. A transwoman should be treated without prejudice and she has the right to be protected against discrimination based on her identity. However, even with a GRC, her gender-based rights do not make her automatically eligible to sex-based rights, i.e. single sex spaces designated for women, women being represented on public boards, womens'sports etc. I think. There may be some exceptions to this though. I have to go through it more carefully.
So because I know that I don't know, for my own rereading and understanding, I place these links here.
Here's Sky covering the announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhc0JR9rLU
This is pithy compared to the actual judgement: 88 pages! Jaysus!
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042
* https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/what-is-a-woman-supreme-court-rules-on-equality-act-2010/5123025.article
Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed, said the language of the EA in its ‘context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man”…mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man’. *
In the UK, sex and gender reassignment are two separate characteristics, both have protections by law. But the argument has been that the words 'woman' and 'man' in the EA2010 also applies to trans people who have Gender Recognition Certificates. This has been unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court judges, who hold that within the context of the law, 'sex' means a biological classification, not a certification. A transwoman should be treated without prejudice and she has the right to be protected against discrimination based on her identity. However, even with a GRC, her gender-based rights do not make her automatically eligible to sex-based rights, i.e. single sex spaces designated for women, women being represented on public boards, womens'sports etc. I think. There may be some exceptions to this though. I have to go through it more carefully.
So because I know that I don't know, for my own rereading and understanding, I place these links here.
Here's Sky covering the announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhc0JR9rLU
This is pithy compared to the actual judgement: 88 pages! Jaysus!
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042
* https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/what-is-a-woman-supreme-court-rules-on-equality-act-2010/5123025.article