Legal definition of a woman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twostep said:
Back to the basics in GB?
Click to expand...
Much more complicated than that.

The case - which focused on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act - began in 2018.

This was after Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

For Women Scotland then complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.

The campaign group argued this would have wider implications for the single-sex spaces and groups, such as hospital wards and prisons - where transgender women with a gender recognition certificate would be treated as biological women.

Transgender people, meanwhile, warned the case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender.

The appeals

The issue was then contested several times in the Scottish courts - where the campaign group's arguments failed to change the law.

In the meantime, heated debate around the separate arguments on the subject arose, including an ongoing employment tribunal involving a female NHS Fife nurse who objected to a transgender doctor using a women's changing room.

The Supreme Court - today's verdict

On appeal, the case finally arrived at the Supreme Court in London, where the judges today ruled against the Scottish government and in favour of For Women Scotland.

As we've been reporting, the judgement unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
 

Britain's top judges unanimously found that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender.

The decision is being hailed by gender-critical campaigners as a major victory, with the Harry Potter author saying it would protect 'the rights of women and girls across the UK'.

The court's decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today.

The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.

The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.

It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and women's group For Women Scotland over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish law.

The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.

The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women's quota.

But campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that the words 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act must mean 'biological sex', rejecting any alternative interpretations as 'incoherence and impracticable'.
The ruling comes after years of campaigning by gender-critical figures including Harry Potter author Rowling, who reacted today by posting on X: 'It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I'm so proud to know you.'

She later added: 'Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don't doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women's sex-based rights.'

In an 88-page ruling published today, the justices said: 'The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.'

They stated: 'A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender does not come within the definition of a 'woman' under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect.'
 
Human sexuality is complex. There is the body and there is the mind. Most of the times there are in sinc as to which sex they are. Sometime they are not. If a person feels their mind does not agree with the body's sex, and wants to live according to their mental image, I feel why in the hell not, it ain't gonna matter. But a male/female body is a male /female body regardless of what the mental sexual image is. A competition restricted to males or females depends on the body's sex, per DNA, not mental image.
People don't become transsexuals on a lark, it's an excruciating mental affair. I think the laws have to be rewritten to give everyone the same rights as a person of the other gender, but also the right of one gender to compete with members of the same genetic sex in games.
And as far the the scare tactic about transsexuals in bathrooms, to date there is not 1 verified incident.
 
Last edited:
MACKTEXAS said:
I haven't sorted out how to view issue. There are those who do not want men competing in women's sports, and vice versa. So it seems to me that new court rulings will complicate such matters.
Click to expand...
I could not care less if trans or whatever as live and let live but I do agree they should not play in women's sports as that is unfair but other then that one issue best to them .
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I haven't sorted out how to view issue. There are those who do not want men competing in women's sports, and vice versa. So it seems to me that new court rulings will complicate such matters.
Click to expand...
"The concept of sex is binary". That does not answer the question about gender. "Gender" and "sex" are words that do not necessarily mean the same thing.

There are rare, but not insignificant, examples of babies born with both male and female sexual organs. They are labelled "intersex". IMO that blows up the argument that sex is binary.

Then there are the babies born with three sex chromosomes - XXX, XXY and XYY. My grandaughter is XXX. Is she a normal female or a superwoman? Is she a special case, or an anomaly that doesn't matter?

More problematic is the XXY combination. Should this person be considered female (XX) or male (XY)? Which chromosome should be discounted?

Reading the full judgment, I find it practical, providing people who do not fit the binary definition are not discriminated against.
 
Warrigal said:
"The concept of sex is binary". That does not answer the question about gender. "Gender" and "sex" are words that do not necessarily mean the same thing.

There are rare, but not insignificant, examples of babies born with both male and female sexual organs. They are labelled "intersex". IMO that blows up the argument that sex is binary.

Then there are the babies born with three sex chromosomes - XXX, XXY and XYY. My grandaughter is XXX. Is she a normal female or a superwoman? Is she a special case, or an anomaly that doesn't matter?

More problematic is the XXY combination. Should this person be considered female (XX) or male (XY)? Which chromosome should be discounted?

Reading the full judgment, I find it practical, providing people who do not fit the binary definition are not discriminated against.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't know how to respond to the issues you've brought up. I am keeping this simple for the purposes of my previous post, and this one.

Some, if not all, court rulings seem to be that a person is the sex they were born with. If a man alters his anatomy to become what he perceives to be female, he may not be welcome in men's locker rooms, but according to the courts, that's where he belongs - unless of course he is to be excluded from any sports whatsoever, which would / could be a whole different court case. And there are several of those.

I appreciate your opinions, Warrigal, and have agreed with many of them, so my views should not be considered argumentative; rather a clarification of the point(s) I already made.
 
You are born EITHER a male or a female – born with male reproductive organs that produce sperm or born with reproductive organs that produce eggs. Granted there are isolated exceptions where a child may be born with a ******* malformation but internally they are still either male or female.

Surgeries can change your gender outwardly but that is all they can do. Technically you are still born either male or female – that is your biological sex. As for transgender males competing in women’s sports, they will have more muscle strength- I don’t know if this diminishes over time due to hormone therapy. What a conundrum. In one way, transgenders should be integrated and allowed to live their lives as they choose without bullying or made to feel inferior – on the other hand, it really does affect sports and is unfair to women athletes.
 
astralcat said:
You are born EITHER a male or a female – born with male reproductive organs that produce sperm or born with reproductive organs that produce eggs. Granted there are isolated exceptions where a child may be born with a ******* malformation but internally they are still either male or female.

Surgeries can change your gender outwardly but that is all they can do. Technically you are still born either male or female – that is your biological sex. As for transgender males competing in women’s sports, they will have more muscle strength- I don’t know if this diminishes over time due to hormone therapy. What a conundrum. In one way, transgenders should be integrated and allowed to live their lives as they choose without bullying or made to feel inferior – on the other hand, it really does affect sports and is unfair to women athletes.
Click to expand...
And therein lie the complications that I have in my mind. The courts may be hearing a lot of cases.
 
Transgendered people are about .6 of the population and very few of them want to play women's sports, although I think it's unfair when they do. Yet we have the Supreme Courts worrying about how they should be defined and people basing their votes for president on issues surrounding them. Like that other other hot button issue, I think it should all be between the person and their doctor and I shouldn't even know about it.
Capt Lightning said:
Before the Supreme court ruling in the UK, It was reported that in the USA, it was decreed:
"As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female." and that these could not be changed.
Click to expand...

They can decree but mother nature will laugh.
Guevedoces syndrome, also known as 5α-reductase deficiency, is a genetic condition where individuals are born with female-appearing *******ia but develop male *******ia at puberty. This is due to a deficiency in the enzyme 5α-reductase, which is responsible for converting testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a hormone crucial for male sexual development.
Click to expand...
 
JustDave said:
I can see that it becomes a technical issue in sports, but not much in any other situation. Did the founding fathers see this issue becoming a court case?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that back in the age of the founding fathers, this issue was seldom seen, and when it was.... likely treated as a mental illness.
 
I agree with others about transgender men to women competing in women's sports, they do have an unfair biological advantage.
I'm not sure where that leaves a transgendered person - I guess they can just compete in mixed gender sports or non competitive sports or take up roles like umpiring where gender does not matter - but to allow otherwise is unfair on other women.

However in every other aspect of life, if people feel strongly enough about this to transition to other gender, then they should be accepted and not dis criminated against.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top