Chris

It gives transgender people protection on the basis of their being, or perceived to be, transgender, because the EA has a specific clause doing so. That was never at issue. Trans-identifying people have not lost any rights under this ruling because those rights were already enacted specifically for them.

However, what the EA does not do, is give a man who claims he is a woman (a so-called ‘transwoman’) the protections granted to women under the Equality Act. The judges ruled that would be perverse because it would give such people double-rights under the Act. On this issue, the Scottish Government, and in fact the whole ridiculous TWAW movement, has absolutely lost.

There are serious real-world implications for this for any organisation providing a sex-based service (including staff changing rooms and toilets - NHS Fife should be cacking its pants right now).

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

A woman is an adult human female. That is how the Equality Act 2010 should be read. Even if you have a gender recognition certificate, if you are not biologically female you do not have the right to services that are provided on the basis of sex. For the avoidance of doubt, their honours made clear that in normative language, ‘woman’ and ‘female’ mean biology, not feelz. So a so-called ‘transwoman’ (i.e. a man who claims to be a woman) has no legal right to be housed in a women’s prison, a women’s hospital changing room, or a women’s toilet or a rape crisis centre, because he is not a woman.

The next logical question is what is the Gender Recognition act even for? Because it doesn’t do the one thing trans-identifying people seem to want it to do, which is create an entire identity with an acquired sex exactly as if they were, biologically, what they feel they are in gender terms.