“The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the UK equalities law defines a woman as someone born biologically female.
Justice Patrick Hodge said five judges at the court had ruled unanimously that “the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
[…] Justice Hodge said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”
Make no mistake. This ruling sets a precedent and it means that everywhere (at least in the UK) the word woman is used, it means someone who is biologically a woman.
The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating that there should be a 50 per cent female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. That law included transgender women in its definition of women.
For Women Scotland (FWS), a women’s rights group, had challenged that law, arguing that its redefinition of woman went beyond parliament’s powers. But Scottish officials then issued new guidance stating that the definition of woman included someone with a gender recognition certificate.
FWS successfully sought to overturn that.
The group had said the outcome of the case could have consequences in Scotland, England and Wales for sex-based rights as well as single-sex facilities such as toilets, hospital wards and prisons.
“Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” the group’s director Trina Budge said previously.
The challenge was rejected by a court in 2022, but the group was granted permission last year to take its case to the Supreme Court.
[…] The women’s right group counted among its supporters author JK Rowling, who reportedly donated tens of thousands of pounds to back its work. The “Harry Potter” writer has been vocal in arguing that the rights for trans women should not come at the expense of those who are born biologically female.
Opponents, including Amnesty International, said excluding transgender people from sex discrimination protections conflicted with human rights laws.
[…] “A blanket policy of barring trans women from single-sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim,” the human rights group said.”
Yeah sure, banning men from services for biological women is discrimination. How far Amnesty International has fallen...
The whole trans movement rests on one simple argument: that sex and gender are different things, with sex being set at birth and gender being fluid and changeable.
Let’s assume that the argument is correct and apply it to say women’s spaces. Here does woman mean gender or sex? Or women’s sports. Are we referring to gender or sex?
The reason the trans movement managed to get away with everything for so long is that no one has bothered to ask this question.
Oh, and also they conflate sex with gender in a way that can only be described as duplicitous linguistic sleight of hand.
Now, at least in the UK, “woman” means sex not gender. That sign above the women’s bathroom? It means only those whose sex is female can go in, not those who gender-identify as a woman.
Kind of basic commonsense really.
One of the funniest things I’ve read is a tranny saying that because of the ruling he’s now going to be two sexes and that therefore the ruling is ridiculous.
Sprung!
Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360657281/uk-supreme-court-rules-equalities-law-defines-woman-someone-born-biologically-female
Kevin is a Libertarian and pragmatic anarchist. His favourite saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
It should be remembered that the Supreme Court was only interpreting a piece of legislation rather than making any moral or political statement (as our woke judge's tend to do).
Yes, the Judges were doing their job as they were appointed to do. A point our judiciary should take notice of
Post a Comment