Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Your reasoning is flawed.
The ruling itself said that the court made its decision based on “plain reading” of words even when they are not explicitly defined.
It does not need to explicitly include the word “female” for it to be blindingly obvious to anyone (except you) that the ruling does in fact cover the word female. The definition of “female” is clear on exactly the same reasoning that the meaning of “woman” is clear. It’s biology. End of.
Stop being a contrarian. It’s tedious.
|
A biological male with a GRC is legally female. Is that no longer true?
Quote:
|
266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010.
|
"female" and "woman" are different, depending on context.
Wading through the actual judgement highlights what a incoherent nonsense the whole thing is