[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But even that is an incorrect assessment.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



You can’t change your biology, so the terms woman and female now refer to biological sex (why we need a court to decide this proves how far into hell we have already descended)

There is no context required.

Woman, female = not a man.

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



They’ll usually be about 5’8” maximum, and look like a bearded woman.

Only applies to the Equality Act 2010.

265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.
(i) The question for the court is a question of statutory interpretation; we are concerned with the meaning of the provisions of the EA 2010 in the light of section 9 of the GRA (para 2).
...
(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
...
(xviii) We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate (para 264).

The judgment repeatedly refers to biological male/female with a GRC as being legally female/male. The Equality Act 2010 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, refer to a woman being a female of any age. That is the source of these arguments. The Act of 1975 didn't consider that the legal definition of "female" might change in the future.
Further more, the judgment highlights that the "protected characteristic" of the Quality Act etc, applies to perceived characteristic, not actual.

251. Take, for example, a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks that she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job instead to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no difference to her claim, which would be treated in the same way as a direct discrimination claim made by a biological woman based on the sex of the complainant herself.

And yet the judgment contradicts itself by saying that quotas are to be based upon biological sex, not perceived sex.
Sports

236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1).