all things purple

Also - like the judgement as a whole is......at such great pains to say that, honest, they respect trans folk and recognise them:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).

In point three they do this wonderful statement:

the EA 2010 recognises as having protected characteristics are women, whose protected characteristic is sex, and “transsexual” people, whose protected characteristic is gender reassignment

My 'favourite' bit of that is that women don't get "" just "transsexual"..... (It isn't in "" in the EA, just as a note, this is a choice they made)

For their purposes, they are defining biological sex, as 'sex at birth' - which is to say, assigned sex. Which......is an issue. (They do so, because that's how its used elsewhere - which isn't great. but generally causes much less issues than defining it that way in the equality act).

The problem is, the presumption that 'sex at birth' (assigned sex, as they don't do a full biological exam) is the correct sex. This means that non-trans individuals can still be caught out by this.

Intersex, and other genetic quirks that can mean that the 'sex at birth' is shown to have been incorrect or forced to comply with default binary gender (the old default intersex kids to being female - even if they don't have either parts).

There's a bunch of details in the document that outright states that the act treats sex as a binary - and talks about how that stance effects the way it is translated in legal use (and attempts to make that stance work in relation to transexual individuals).

As explained more fully below, a person who is aged at least 18 can apply for a GRC under the GRA 2004. Section 9(1) of that Act provides that when a full GRC is issued to a person the person’s gender becomes “for all purposes” the acquired gender so Page 10 that if the acquired gender is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman. But that provision is “subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation”: section 9(3).

That paragraph pains me. Because 'for all purposes' except. :/

Sex Matters provides this:

the Office of National Statistics estimated that there are about 48,000 trans men and 48,000 trans women in England and Wales, and Scotland’s census 2022 found that 19,990 people were trans, compared with a total of 8,464 people who have ever obtained a GRC as at June 2024

Which is honestly painful. As they argue only GRC holding folk would count as women, all other transwomen are men.

The toilet debate is going to get so much worse now.

SO MANY of the past decisions went so far to avoid allowing this to create a no man's land for at least transsexuals with GRCs. And they detailed it alllll and then went against it.

but 'it's not a win for anyone really' *head desk*

They allowed four organisations to submit arguments....and two of them are binary biological sex folk. The other two are Amnesty International and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

(Oh and this This guidance is now wrong - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/guidance-separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-equality-act-sex-and-gender-reassignment-exceptions.pdf )

YAY. I hate it. (It is technically making it three per side, but the groups in question are hardly equal)

We are grateful to the interveners for their contributions. We are particularly grateful to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions

No, I really really hate this. They specifically thanked the BINARY BIOLOGICAL SEX GROUP *screams*

I read their definition - I screamed so loud the pup came to make sure I'm ok - lordddd - be warned, it's literally XX and XY and preordained since time began

https://sex-matters.org/resources/sex-and-gender-faqs/#sex

Back to page 13 of 88 - The Judgement - they are going back to - The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - which wasn't pre transgender folk being recognised, honest

that discrimination is not unlawful where sex is a genuine occupational qualification - quoted from the SDA 1975.

Yes, there are a small number of places that is a valid thing and relevant, but in the context of this judgement...this is painful.

(The EDA 2010 specifically replaces the SDA 1975 - but they are spending a long time detailing SDA 1975)

They get one point for this:

First, there can be no doubt that Parliament intended that the words “man” and “woman” in the SDA 1975 would refer to biological sex – the trans community of course existed at the time but their recognition and protection did not

But there's wayyyy too much 'where men would have a physical advantage' bollocks. (I say that as a v wee woman, who regularly out lifted and out worked men bigger than me in v physical jobs - I hate itttttt)

And now into horrible judgements made against transgender people and their loved ones. Yay. o.o

1999 amendments of 1975 for trans folk.

Back to the GRA 2004 (without the logical, and the EA 2010 came in to replace and improve upon 1975 and 1999 *sighs* but then they seem to be doing it chronologically)

The Court concluded that the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone which is not quite one gender or the other was no longer sustainable: para 90.

Andddd your judgement....doesn't recreate that? Dumbasses

Honestly, reading this - there needs to be an update to GRA 2004. It has issuessssss (section 19 o.o)

And someone's gender pre GRC is protected characteristic.....so this is all.... *head desk*

Paragraph 81 - is so bitchy. Honestly.

In our view, this is a good illustration of why the use to which the courts should put explanatory notes is limited to the context of the legislation and the mischief to which its provisions are aimed

For a decision that wasn't taking sides.....this sure is taking sides.

(they dismissed an appeal that argued about police officers being a genuine occupational requirement - I had to find the judgement to get the context of the paragraph on it in this judgement, which is stupid given arguement being made with it - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/chief-1.htm )

89 & 90 are painful - how do you live in a gender? o.o

There is so much illustration of why so few people have GRCs.SO MUCH.

95 - more bitchy comments on scottish gov

oooo pro trans folk still have issues comment - two points

104 - we say the notes are in error in this case (DUDES WTF)

Honestly birth certificates should just have parent 1, parent 2. (FOR SO MANY REASONS)

More case law - against somewhat mashed or partial

And now, EDA 2010

I understand broadly why the EDA 2010 deals with sex as binary, but this whole case proves how that means there is a hole into which some people will sadly always fall. Which the scot gov was basically trying to at least partly counter.

Protected under gender reassignment, but not under sex is....messy. Espec as they point out, it's meant to be used with combinations of traits as well as each trait (characteristic) seperately.

Their write up throws up the fun all the pregnancy and maternity stuff says 'woman' when one of the cases listed earlier was a transman who had a baby. But they don't comment on that. Just that it clearly specifies that biological men can't have babies. So the EDA clearly doesn't allow for transmen to be anything but women for the purposes of the act. (Though, they very much do not actually say that here...which .....yeah)

Paragraph 142 - guessing that article edges into being dodgy given it had 'assumes inclusion as part of the group' in relation to sex.

Technically arguing that transfolk get the sex characterisitic via...indirect means......sometimes.....

It feels like EDA 2010 now needs an added gender identity characteristic to....plug the hole.....a bit. *sighs*

This is so messy.

Oooooo percieved charactistics.

Even messier.

I can see why they threw the 'this isn't a win really in' now. They have left loads of comments that people could use to argue against the For Women Scotland folk, BUT, you would have to do it in court because of this ruling. Which sucks balls folks.

Paragraph 157 is a wild ride folks. End with, if this is the case, scot gov is right.

EDA 2010 not saying biological doesn't mean it doesn't mean biological. Thanks folks., I hate it. This is page 48. o,o

We can't assume with EDA parliament meant to change the SDA from biological sex *sighs* round we go again (bonus, no one highlighted anything from the written debates pre EDA on this)

"even if we are wrong about that" LMAO

Anything pre EDA 2010 that it overwrote is no longer relevant. Even though we just spent...a while on that.

The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.

Thanks everyone. Sucks if you fall outside of, or bridge both. We shall choose your side.

" Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.

Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group."

Sadly, they do in fact need further explanation, but that's a whole other mess of fish, so I get why y'all refused to touch it with a barge pole. But shared biology. If only the biology was really that simple.

Paragraph 172 - is basically 'we don't understand where there is a variation between gender reassignment and sex, and that means to us having transgender people also have sex is messy' - when....allll of the characteristics have crossover. LITERALLY paragraphs have been spent on that. You can be disabled and a woman, sexuality and sex..... But not gender reassigned and the other sex as we ourselves understand it.

Gender reassignment is a specific seperate characteristic for a reason. *sighs*

"We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group"

Because the deinfition of sex you found the most useful was from the gender binary people. Just....maybe

Moreover, it makes no sense for conduct under the EA 2010 in relation to sex-based rights and protections to be regulated on a practical day-to-day basis by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a (confidential) certificate. Some of the practical consequences of a certificated sex definition are described in the case presented by Sex Matters. They state that uncertainty and ambiguity about the circumstances in which it is legitimate to treat (biological) women and girls as a distinct group whose interests need to be considered and protected, have the effect that many organisations now feel inhibited in doing so

Oh look my feeling was right. That whole argument is so stupid. It only counts if you can actually, casually, identify a person's sex correctly everytime. Which is counter to the indirect discrimination bits you mentioned.

Like....they wrote that down and didn't think, hey that's true the other way too. You can't tell a person has a GRC without knowing they have one, so how does anyone KNOW they aren't the sex they list now.

Mention without specifically saying that the pregnancy bit saying women means that it's biological sex throughout. Yay. OOO 177 they say it.

Soooo basically, if the pregnancy bits said person who gave birth rather than woman....it wouldn't mean biological sex in the whole act.

And now, paragraphs of the maternity stuff. So yeah.

Sorry transmen.

The EDA having to be worded to match civil partnership law is totes because it means biological sex at all times.

Really really sorry transmen. Lord.

They really really don't have a fully clear understanding of issues trans folk face. Or people other people assume to be trans have to face because of certain people who are celebrating this face.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS WILD - there's so much on how if it isn't biological sex, pregnant folk would have no protections. Literally, all of this just needs an amendment for it to be a pregnant person/individual

Or they need to add a specific characterisitc beyond gender resassignment or edit that to cover more - honestly I don't know, I can just see how this is going to lead to bad things.

At this point, 57 pages in, there has been absolutely no mention of intersex folk. At all.

Yay. (which fun times, if there were 'biologically male' folk (following the 'male at birth' arguments, and the binary) who can in fact get pregnant, by this long ass argument they would negate this whole thing apparently *laughs hysterically*)

191 - we are not allowing any variation in use of words in this act, so there

Oh i just remembered the experiments with uterine transplants to transwomen - they didn't go well, but that was....a long time ago and we're doing successfully for women who were born without now so.....eh not part of their consideration

There are no circumstances in which a biological male can become pregnant, and no man can therefore ever be an appropriate comparator in a pregnancy discrimination case p59

Moreover, in either case, the individual’s biological sex may continue to be readily perceivable and may form the basis of unlawful discrimination. p60

*screams*

They are being nice because this means all transfolk are equal whether they have a GRC or not. (There's weird comments that could be read as 'they all look the same anyhoo' which....not sure how to take that one)

Everyone is pressured to treat all transwomen as women, and that's apparently not ok. Because it means women and girls are being exposed to transwomen.

The toilet and changing room debates are going to be so much worse - especailly as the government in their wisdom semi banned mixed gender facilities. FAB.

I really despise sex matters at this point.

People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate. p62

Some people, dear judges, are in fact sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certifiicate.

Telling all queer folk how we perceive sexuality and what we are attracted to. Yay. Thanks guys, we haven't been arguing that it's not 100% about biology for years or anything.

This is exactly why GENDER tends to be used in terms of sexuality rather than sex.

ONLY lesbians are under threat. Sorry boys, you don't get threatened.

I must have missed this epidemic of transwomen in lesbian spaces.....(where they clearly weren't welcome....but stayed after the lesbians all left?!?)

And more assumptions - seeing 'must' a lot

or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence

Because men shouldn't also have a seperate space for that (it' s a noticable lack of comment when the rest of the paragraph provides for both)

There's lots of potential for taking them to be assuming you can distinctiguish between transfolk and non transfolk. Its awkward. Everytime they are like 'you can't visually tell who has a certificate and who doesn't you know' .

Also, how many transwomen with GRC's...present as biological men? (213 specifically makes a point of saying they do....)

Single sex schools - urgghhhhhh I hate this

So much of the comments are like 'you can totally still tell their biological sex' *screams*

And sports.

These idiots really stood up and said this ISN'T A WIN FOR EITHER SIDE

paragraph 235 - really going for the not fully proven bollocks about why some sports just have to be seperate, even if they weren't in the past

Semi arguing there should be a quote for transfolk as well as women and men.

I really hope that a second side of the EHRC comments is - we need to have extra stuff to protect and recognise transfolk so their gender identity is respected...because these eight points as given are again, wild.

Lots of perceived anomolies that I feel like transfolk would have v different feelings about than the judges (spend years fighting to be recognised as the gender, then for a job asking for the gender you don't identify as.....)

What we actually need is a third category.

p80 and finally 'why this won't negatively affect transfolk, honest'

Messyyy

I also think it's hilarious that, for the purposes of the EA 2010 now, any laws/guidelines for sex representation on boards etc, could choose to fill female seats with transmen. Because, sex at birth and biol;ogical sex, they be female. It's unlikely, but, given that was the whole dang point of this, ironic.