The Supreme Court did not say the legal definition of 'woman' is based on your 'biological sex' for all legal purposes - it is for the Equality Act only.
Which is fucking terrible on its own (prevents trans-women from claiming discrimination as women & gives credence to the legal/social idea that trans people are not their true identities/are dangerous in single-sex spaces)
But please don't let the inaccurate article titles convince you that all is lost.
the GRA's legal pathway to getting a GRC (including issuance of new birth certificates - which ensures the appropriate gender identity for marriage/civil partnership, and pension rights provision)
or the the EA's protection of trans people from discrimination on the basis of gender reassigment.
Your gender identity's validity in laws other than the Equality Act 2010
or access to changing your gender in administrative areas - like the marker on passports.
TERFs may be celebrating this as resulting in total exclusion of all trans women, both with or without GRCs, from 'female-only' spaces.
This is not true. Today's decision did not allow that - sex based exceptions for 'proportionate' reasons was and still is the rule.
If a trans woman is excluded from a women-only space -
Today's ruling means she cannot claim sex-based discrimination as a woman.
But, she can still claim she was discriminated against based on gender-reassignment.
However, like I said, the Government has already said this sort of sex-based exception would be legal under the EA if it's for 'proportionate' reasons. (In its arguments, today's judgement confirmed that).
It's still unclear if today's judgement will have an effect on this - other than groups feeling emboldened by it to exclude trans people - using the 'proportionate' exception.
Or law/policy-makers being encouraged to amend other legislation/ policies. (Which are both definitely significant consequences)
The ruling is still horrifying, and all outrage is totally justified.
But I want to make clear that what TERFs are claiming about the immediate, practical legal impact of this judgement on single-sex spaces is not true.
Neither is the claim that the legal definition of 'woman' no longer includes trans-women in any law other than the EA.
Do not let them convince you that you have lost more rights than you actually have. Know your rights.
source 1, source 2, the judgement
UPDATE (17/04): "An NHS spokesperson told the BBC the service was "reviewing guidance on same sex accommodation" and as part of this process "will consider and take into account all relevant legislation and the Supreme Court ruling"."
The chairwoman of the EHRC (the watchdog for the Equality Act) has said they will issue new guidance to public bodies (including the NHS and prisons) on single-sex spaces -
"The NHS will be pursued if it does not follow new guidance on single-sex spaces, the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said."
Current NHS guidance says trans people should be "accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use".
The new guidance will ask the NHS to scrap this, or be pursued by the EHRC.
When will the EHRC be releasing this guidance?
"An updated code of practice is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess."
note: this post was edited to include newer information and highlight points.
blakekathryn
origamiaround
