The ruling by the Supreme Court this morning on the legal definitions of male and female in the context of the Equality Act 2010 and to a secondary extent, the Gender Recognition Act 2018 has been somewhat negligently and irresponsibly reported on, by the BBC as well as other news organisations.
The context of the judgement was very specifically that of the Equality Act 2010, and how that act defines male and female. Part of the judgement, which can be read here :
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2 ... c48cee.pdf observes that interpreting that act as defining sex as certificated gender rather than biological sex as determined at birth would render the act (the EA 2010) “incoherent”. That seems to me to make perfectly logical sense. The judgement also observes that trans women and trans men with a gender recognition certificate are already recognised as a part of a group with a “protected characteristic” as defined by the act.
The judgement has been welcomed by the government, the EHRC, and erm, Kemi Badenoch. But I think it would be wrong to characterise this judgement as a setback for trans rights. It is nothing of the kind.
And for those insisting that this is another instance of Labour indulging “transphobia” (doubtless “Nev the Sweeper” will be along shortly), give your heads a wobble.
"The opportunity to serve our country: that is all we ask.” John Smith, May 11, 1994.
100 %
- By davidjay