UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female
Judgment is a victory for gender-critical feminist campaigners — and a blow for transgender rights activists.
With facism, inequality and the impending threat of ww3 threatening the stability of the world this certainly doesn’t seem like a bs waste of time and energy at all
Isn't just mind blowing what a colossal waste of time this whole thing is? Imagine if we spent this energy on solving real issues but I guess idiots need to be occupied with something or they'd become self aware.
The highest court in the country is spending time on deciding what a word means. This should be emberassing.
If we weren't distracted by this we wouod have to unify against the top 1% earners of the world and nobody(TM) wants that.
Of course , I never saw a non biological woman. Do stones have genders?
Scottish courts ruled, and then upheld in the Scottish government’s favor, that sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex,” and must include those in possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
But that was challenged in London’s Supreme Court by campaigners. And, in its ruling Wednesday, the country’s highest court said the meaning of the terms “sex,” “man” and “woman” in the U.K.’s Equality Act must refer to “biological sex” — with any other interpretation deemed “incoherent and impracticable.”
And here lies the issue. Maybe I am understanding how society and science are defining terms in these cases, but: doesn’t woman/man = gender (which differs depending on culture, time period, etc) and female/male = sex (which is a medical/scientific term)? It appears both sides of the table are trying to make these terms mean something they do not.
Either way, I see no practical point in actually making a law defining these terms, especially when the legal definition is not even correct scientifically speaking. There are so many biological changes that trans individuals go through when they medically transition and society will see them differently if they “pass” in their society. Also, sex isn’t so black and white either.
Thanks for the summary, very helpful.
To my knowledge, the words man/woman are not originally a social construct - they're the biological terms for human males and females (like a bitch is a female canine, and a rooster is a male chicken). However, as science has advanced, it's become increasingly clear that biology is not as binary as male and female.
On the other hand, we have binary gender roles, which are a social construct. Since external genetalia generally form the basis for assigning gender roles, there is a very close but not exact overlap between gender roles and biological sex. The argument is that since gender roles don't always match biology, the words man/woman are social constructs. Effectively, they're trying to adapt the original definitions, but are not unexpectedly meeting with resistance.
Going back to this specific law, my immediate question would be: what determines whether you're biologically male or female? Is it your current genetalia or the genetalia you were born with, i.e. what about trans people that have transitioned? If it is the genetalia you're born with, then what about hermaphrodites? If it's your genetics, then what about intersex people? Etc.
The law wasn't written to account for all these complex biological possibilities. So it sounds to me as if the scottish courts were trying to simplify by effectively letting a dr. make that decision. I assume as a next step the UK will face court cases challenging the definition of "biological".
Adding to the complexity, in my opinion, is that this particular case is about equality. This raises difficult questions about privilege, and nature vs nurture. The chess example comes to mind, where trans women have been excluded from the women's only tournament. The main tournament is open to all genders, so they can still play, just not in the women's only tournament. The argument is that due to gender roles, cis women are likely to have faced much higher barriers to learning chess as children than trans women. Those disadvantages from enforced gender roles is why the women's league even exists, as an attempt to encourage more women to participate, and trans women wouldn't have had to overcome the same barriers.
So, coming back to equality, what is more important, your current gender presentation, or the gender role in which you were raised? The answer to that question depends on so many factors in each situation, that I'm not convinced trying to force people into existing definitions make sense. It feels to me as if we need new legal definitions with more categories, but it is going to be extremely difficult to create definitions that adequately address the issues.
Now define "biological female".
"Annoying outgrowth around the pussy"
It is vague, but it does rule out "man in a dress and wig". I mean men in dresses and wigs is great and all. They are free to do what they want. They just aren't women, and I will never call them such.
Please form a single file line for the government sanctioned genitalia check. Each one of you could be a man in a dress and wig and it's super important to me to know which.
Reality and science disagree, but whatever.
Truth doesnt mean a thing to people full of hate...
That's bullshit.
The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.
There are still laws about trans people.
rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time
Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.
And "man/woman" are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).
I don't suppose that's true, is it. Laws change over time, right? And different people have different understandings even at a fixed time.
Trans people are just people. It's like saying "there are still laws about black people" in the Jim Crow South.
Laws should be written to be inclusive, not exclusive. When laws are written in these fragmented ways it is the exact purpose of right wingers to exploit them. It is written to SERVE THE POWER OF OPPRESSION.
This is the same as "gay people can have civil partnerships". While ignoring that it is literally just a method used to exclude gay partners of the same rights married partners have.
It's the same "separate but equal" bull shit that has existed over and over. I don't know how "well intentioned liberals" keep falling for this same trick over and over again throughout our history.
The rules on "sex" are entirely based on social definitions of gender norms. Or tell me you would be confused by seeing this guy walk through TSA with F as his sex.
Edit: I really should not have to use "passing" trans people to make my point. But I feel like people live in a different reality where every ID check is followed up with a genital inspection.
But this isn't about changing a definition, it's about expanding recognition to a previously mischaracterised portion of the population.
If racoons were at one point considered to be cats but now we know they're actually much closer related to bears than anything else, are we changing the definition of "cat" and "bear"?
UK really wants to be an American colony so badly right now. Get ready to lose your NHS and pensions soon enough.
They now thinking about repealing hate speech laws to please JD Vance.
Off to the EU I go
I am not following this topic.
As I understand it this means that a man that in some way transforms to a look like a woman (since the internal feeling is that of a woman) are still considered a man.
What are the practical rights differences between a man and a woman under UK law?
Retirement age is one.
Wonder how much money that notorious TERF Rowling paid this court.
How does this impact law meaningfully? Are there any important legal distinctions between men and women?
goofy how the "equality act" differentiates between different types of people
Then they should update the Equality Act.
Yeh, my understanding is that this was a ruling on the current law, they said that if they rules otherwise, the law would be unworkable I think?
So therefore parliament should legislate properly about it rather than just trying to bend what already existed.
The American mind cannot comprehend this.
Oh look, an illegitimate court making up illegitimate rules.
