LONDON: The United Kingdom's highest court ruled on Wednesday (Apr 16) that the definition of a woman under equality legislation referred to "biological sex", but it said trans people would not be disadvantaged by its landmark decision. The Supreme Court's judgment related to whether a trans woman wit
  • Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.orgEnglish
    72·
    6 days ago

    “The correct interpretation of the EA (Equality Act) as referring to biological sex does not cause disadvantage to trans people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate,” Hodge said. “Trans people have the rights which attach to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”

    Apart from the fact that the premise of this ruling is bogus and apart from the fact that it’s needlessly othering it also leaves them the option of stripping trans women of their rights at any point without meddling with cis women’s rights. At least I don’t see another reason for keeping things separate.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.spaceEnglish
    119·
    6 days ago

    Time to boycott the UK. Make it unacceptable to buy UK goods or services and still claim to be a trans ally.

  • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    56·
    6 days ago

    At what point of conception is defined our biological sex? Is it at birth? If so, does it means that a fetus has no sex? If so, does it means it’s not a person hence has no rights? Then abortion can’t be punished?

    Or maybe sex is defined at the moment in which the egg and the spermathozoid become a single cell? Because boy, have I news for you… You might have erased legally the definition of biological man…

    • deur@feddit.nlEnglish
      51·
      6 days ago

      Sex characteristic development is immediately deterministic upon fertilization, but expression of male characteristics comes a bit down the line. It would not be correct to say they are sexless.

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.deEnglish
    23·
    6 days ago

    Sure, very likely the people writing a legal text were not referring to legal definitions of a term or the legal status of things. They must have meant biology instead. /s

    Can I now claim what I did was morally not that bad, and the law is likely not bothered with the legal definition of crime? I mean they could have meant ethics and maybe it’s morally justified to role play as Robin Hood, or insult someone who had that coming? Or maybe it wasn’t me, biology made me do it and that’s now the deciding factor in court?

    How is “no, no, they didn’t mean the legal definition” something a judge would say?