Cable Forum - View Single Post

**Chris** · 25-05-2025, 09:44

The Supreme Court’s job is to be the final arbiter of what the law means. It uses certain basic principles in doing so, amongst which is to assume that words carry their natural meaning.

Nicola Sturgeon is in the Sunday Times this morning bleating that the judgment has been ‘over interpreted’ - this is an emerging attack line from genderists, who are increasingly trying to claim that because For Women Scotland v Scottish Government was really only about the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010, it’s not on to try to impose their definition that a woman is a biological female anywhere else.

The reality is, the SC judgment is a crystal clear case study in how that court defaults to the natural meaning of words in resolving any supposed ambiguity. Those who opposed For Women Scotland seem to have thought they could convince the court that parliament meant to include so-called transwomen in their women’s protections, but the court rejected this because there is a rich history of anti-discrimination law on our statute books which uses the word ‘woman’ often and it is therefore very obvious what the natural meaning of the word is. If Parliament had meant to indicate that ‘woman’ meant something else in the EA2010, it would have to have said so explicitly. It did not.

So, there may be other areas of law, and other acts of parliament, where the SC has not explicitly defined ‘woman’ yet, and some fantasists in the gender cult may have convinced themselves that one day they can get one of these laws in front of the SC and get it to hand down a different definition of ‘woman’, but the reality is that because the SC has very clearly ruled based on the natural, historically proven definition of ‘woman’ as biological female, it just isn’t going to reach any different conclusion about any other Act of Parliament unless that Act is very explicit in its intention to give the word a different definition for the purposes of that Act.

I am not a lawyer, but I am not aware of anywhere in our body of law where the definition of ‘woman’ is handled in that way at all - not even in the gender recognition legislation.

25-05-2025, 09:44	#282
Chris Trollsplatter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North of Watford Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests Posts: 38,146	Re: The gender ideology thread The Supreme Court’s job is to be the final arbiter of what the law means. It uses certain basic principles in doing so, amongst which is to assume that words carry their natural meaning. Nicola Sturgeon is in the Sunday Times this morning bleating that the judgment has been ‘over interpreted’ - this is an emerging attack line from genderists, who are increasingly trying to claim that because For Women Scotland v Scottish Government was really only about the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010, it’s not on to try to impose their definition that a woman is a biological female anywhere else. The reality is, the SC judgment is a crystal clear case study in how that court defaults to the natural meaning of words in resolving any supposed ambiguity. Those who opposed For Women Scotland seem to have thought they could convince the court that parliament meant to include so-called transwomen in their women’s protections, but the court rejected this because there is a rich history of anti-discrimination law on our statute books which uses the word ‘woman’ often and it is therefore very obvious what the natural meaning of the word is. If Parliament had meant to indicate that ‘woman’ meant something else in the EA2010, it would have to have said so explicitly. It did not. So, there may be other areas of law, and other acts of parliament, where the SC has not explicitly defined ‘woman’ yet, and some fantasists in the gender cult may have convinced themselves that one day they can get one of these laws in front of the SC and get it to hand down a different definition of ‘woman’, but the reality is that because the SC has very clearly ruled based on the natural, historically proven definition of ‘woman’ as biological female, it just isn’t going to reach any different conclusion about any other Act of Parliament unless that Act is very explicit in its intention to give the word a different definition for the purposes of that Act. I am not a lawyer, but I am not aware of anywhere in our body of law where the definition of ‘woman’ is handled in that way at all - not even in the gender recognition legislation.