London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman" >excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality >laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in >equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", >sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners but >warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition >certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female
sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's >Equality Act 2010.
London
CNN
—
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman" excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners but warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition certificate
(GRC) – which offers legal recognition of someone's female sex-- are protected
from discrimination as a woman under the nation’s Equality Act 2010.
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality >> laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in >> equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex",
sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners butI >> warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female
sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's
Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and
even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of
"woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how
equality
laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a
woman in
equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex",
sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners
butI
warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female
sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's
Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and
even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation
written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women (i.e. "women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated it) the
same rights as biological women.
On 4/16/25 1:56 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition
of "woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how
equality
laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a
woman in
equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", >>>> sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical
campaigners butI
warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female >>>> sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's >>>> Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and >>> even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation >>> written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women
(i.e. "women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated
it) the same rights as biological women.
Actually, from what I gather, UK Labour is A-OK with this decision, and
seem disinclined to challenge it. The problem is Scottish Labour and SNP which seemed determined to fight this to the bitter end, though it's
less clear to me now that even they'll dead-end over this.
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality >>> laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in >>> equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex",
sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners butI >>> warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female
sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's
Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and
even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation
written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women (i.e. "women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated it) the
same rights as biological women.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality
laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in
equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", >>>> sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners butI >>>> warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female >>>> sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's >>>> Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and >>> even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation >>> written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women (i.e.
"women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated it) the
same rights as biological women.
You don’t have to do anything except claim to be a woman to be a trans woman. You don’t even have to be a drag queen.
On 2025-04-16 9:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:That's true in your country and mine but the UK has something called a
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of "woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality
laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in
equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", >>>>> sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners butI
warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female >>>>> sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's >>>>> Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected >>>> class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and >>>> even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation >>>> written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government. >>>
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women (i.e.
"women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated it) the
same rights as biological women.
You don’t have to do anything except claim to be a woman to be a trans
woman. You don’t even have to be a drag queen.
Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC for short) that some of the
trans-folk get to enable them to change their ID to record them as their
new gender. This woman explains the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJbvIvtqfZM [12 minutes]
On 2025-04-16 4:32 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
London
CNN
The United Kingdom's highest court ruled that the legal definition of
"woman"
excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality
laws are applied.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in
equality legislation refers to "a biological woman and biological sex", >>> sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners butI >>> warnings it was a worrying development for transgender people.
The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) -- which offers legal recognition of someone's female >>> sex -- are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation's
Equality Act 2010.
I don't know if this means anything beyond statutory language, as
drafted in 2010, didn't consider transgendered women to be a protected
class. They didn't rule that a statute couldn't define transgendered
women as a protected class as a constitutional matter, acknowledging
that the effect would be discrimination against women.
I have no idea how this work in the UK and the pesky "unwritten
constitution" aspect of English law. There's no agreement as to which
statutes form the basis of the unwritten constitution in common law, and
even if there were, it would differ over time.
From my own observation, it's a matter of political whim of legislation
written by the government and whether there are new restrictions on
liberties that wouldn't have been infringed upon by a prior government.
I'm going to be deeply surprised if Labour doesn't jump on this ruling
very soon to "right this wrong" with a law that gives trans-women (i.e. "women" who have cut off their balls or at least contemplated it) the
same rights as biological women.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:06:45 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,380 |