![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerI've read throught the judgement and written up a summary of the judgement. I've linked each point to a quote from the judgement.
As you might be able to tell, I'm furious about this.
1) The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) means your gender changes unless (1.1) a law specifically say it doesn't.
2) They knew that when they wrote the Equality Act.
3) Nothing in the equality act specifically says that the GRA doesn't apply.
4) Aaah, but can we say that something *indicates* that?
5) Everyone knows what "sex" means.
6) We can't think of a good reason why the politicians who passed this would want rights to apply to trans people. Even if they didn't say they didn't.
7) Particularly if we assume that every example in the Equalities Act has to apply to a person for it to work.
8) Therefore they *must* have meant biological sex.
9) Therefore a GRC doesn't apply, even though the GRA says it does.
10) Oh, and by the way trans people shouldn't be allowed to use any services at all that are for their lived gender.
11) Also, particular thank you to the lawyer for the transphobes who explained all of this.
*1* "the effect of section 9 of the GRA 2004 on the meaning of the words “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010. Section 9 (set out at para 75 above) provides both for a rule that on receipt of a GRC “the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender” (subsection (1))"
*1.1* "If section 9(3) does not apply, then the section 9(1) rule does apply and sex in the EA 2010 must have an extended meaning that includes “certificated sex”. "
*2* "There is no doubt that the EA 2010 was enacted in the knowledge of the existence of the GRA 2004"
*3* "There is no provision in the EA 2010 that expressly addresses the effect (if any) which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 has on the definition of “sex” or the words “woman” or “man” (and cognate expressions) used in the EA 2010. The terms “biological sex” and “certificated sex” do not appear anywhere in the Act. However, the mere fact that the word “biological” is absent from the EA 2010 definition of “sex” is not by itself indicative of Parliament’s intention that a “certificated sex” meaning is intended. The same is true of the absence of the word “certificated” in the definition of “sex”."
*4* "The question that must therefore be answered is whether there are provisions in the EA 2010 that indicate that the biological meaning of sex is plainly intended and/or that a “certificated sex” meaning renders these provisions incoherent or as giving rise to absurdity"
*5* "The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man" - "Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman."
*6* "We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group."
*7* "a strong indicator that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 have their biological meaning (and not a certificated sex meaning) is provided by sections 13(6), 17 and 18 (which relate to sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination) and the related provisions. The protection afforded by these provisions is predicated on the fact of pregnancy or the fact of having given birth to a child and the taking of leave in consequence. Since as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant, the protection is necessarily restricted to biological women. "
*8* "The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one"
*9* "The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex."
*10* "There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others"
*11* We are particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions.
(I should note at this point that no trans representative group or transgender person was allowed to talk to the judges. They took evidence only from the various transphobic groups, the Scottish Government and Amnesty, not from anyone who would actually be affected on the other side by this ruling.)
As you might be able to tell, I'm furious about this.
1) The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) means your gender changes unless (1.1) a law specifically say it doesn't.
2) They knew that when they wrote the Equality Act.
3) Nothing in the equality act specifically says that the GRA doesn't apply.
4) Aaah, but can we say that something *indicates* that?
5) Everyone knows what "sex" means.
6) We can't think of a good reason why the politicians who passed this would want rights to apply to trans people. Even if they didn't say they didn't.
7) Particularly if we assume that every example in the Equalities Act has to apply to a person for it to work.
8) Therefore they *must* have meant biological sex.
9) Therefore a GRC doesn't apply, even though the GRA says it does.
10) Oh, and by the way trans people shouldn't be allowed to use any services at all that are for their lived gender.
11) Also, particular thank you to the lawyer for the transphobes who explained all of this.
*1* "the effect of section 9 of the GRA 2004 on the meaning of the words “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010. Section 9 (set out at para 75 above) provides both for a rule that on receipt of a GRC “the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender” (subsection (1))"
*1.1* "If section 9(3) does not apply, then the section 9(1) rule does apply and sex in the EA 2010 must have an extended meaning that includes “certificated sex”. "
*2* "There is no doubt that the EA 2010 was enacted in the knowledge of the existence of the GRA 2004"
*3* "There is no provision in the EA 2010 that expressly addresses the effect (if any) which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 has on the definition of “sex” or the words “woman” or “man” (and cognate expressions) used in the EA 2010. The terms “biological sex” and “certificated sex” do not appear anywhere in the Act. However, the mere fact that the word “biological” is absent from the EA 2010 definition of “sex” is not by itself indicative of Parliament’s intention that a “certificated sex” meaning is intended. The same is true of the absence of the word “certificated” in the definition of “sex”."
*4* "The question that must therefore be answered is whether there are provisions in the EA 2010 that indicate that the biological meaning of sex is plainly intended and/or that a “certificated sex” meaning renders these provisions incoherent or as giving rise to absurdity"
*5* "The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man" - "Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman."
*6* "We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group."
*7* "a strong indicator that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 have their biological meaning (and not a certificated sex meaning) is provided by sections 13(6), 17 and 18 (which relate to sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination) and the related provisions. The protection afforded by these provisions is predicated on the fact of pregnancy or the fact of having given birth to a child and the taking of leave in consequence. Since as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant, the protection is necessarily restricted to biological women. "
*8* "The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one"
*9* "The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex."
*10* "There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others"
*11* We are particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions.
(I should note at this point that no trans representative group or transgender person was allowed to talk to the judges. They took evidence only from the various transphobic groups, the Scottish Government and Amnesty, not from anyone who would actually be affected on the other side by this ruling.)
no subject
Date: 2025-04-18 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-18 05:52 am (UTC)https://www.change.org/p/overturn-the-uk-s-new-legal-definition-of-a-woman?source_location=search
no subject
Date: 2025-04-18 06:10 am (UTC)