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
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?