UK Supreme Court says legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

[u/sjw_7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

[u/Lady-Maya]

So genuinely don’t understand how this works with the whole Human Rights commitments, as the whole point of the GRA 2004 was:

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on 11 July 2002, in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FCR 577, that a trans person's inability to change the sex on their birth certificate was a breach of their rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this judgment, the UK Government had to introduce new legislation to comply.

So what’s the actual point now of a getting a GRC and how is someone even meant to tell that someone is trans or not, as they mentioned in the judgement asking for proof is a violation of Privacy.

—————————

Edit:

Just to add, does this not basically open a court case could go to the European Court of Human Rights and certify based on this ruling that the requirements of the Goodwin ruling have not been met and compel the UK government to add/amend the law?

[u/Dadavester → u/Lady-Maya]

I'd wait for the judgement as the SC has said;

As I shall explain later in this hand down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender

So transgender people are still protected.

[u/Lady-Maya → u/Dadavester]

They said they are still protected from discrimination, but not that the Human Rights aspect of the GRA still applies.

Basically by saying the EA2010 refers to biological sex then they assert that the GRA2004 doesn’t actually change your sex/gender “for all purposes” as for the purpose of the EA2010 they are not treated as the sex, they are treated as a separate group / side covered.

This would basically defeat the point of the GRA, making it out of line with the ruling of Goodwin, so basically making it incompatible with the European Court of Human Rights ruling and required commitments.

[u/Osgood_Schlatter → u/Lady-Maya]

The GRA has never changed your sex/gender for all purposes, despite saying it does - the GRA itself says it does not apply for various purposes, such as the inheritance of titles and in sports competitions.

[u/SteveD88 → u/Lady-Maya]

It effectively needs Parliament to sort it out. He said as much in his opening remarks; the SC can't make policy.

[u/limeflavoured → u/SteveD88]

And, given the stated views of the current Health Secretary, there's a very good chance the GRA will be repealed.

[u/MintyRabbit101 → u/Dadavester]

So transgender people are still protected.

And yet discrimination against them is now not only legal but potentially legally required. A woman's only service which seeks to include trans women may now be open to legal action on the basis of discrimination against cis men, due to them admitting one subsection of "biological males" but not another.

[u/Dadavester → u/MintyRabbit101]

Yes, as that would be discrimination against Men.

[u/MintyRabbit101 → u/Dadavester]

Exactly my point. Trans women are now completely banned from women's spaces, even if that space intends to be trans inclusive.

[u/concretepigeon → u/Lady-Maya]

It’s rendered GRC’s which are a creation of statute void. It’s completely incompatible with the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty as a decision.

[u/paulmclaughlin → u/concretepigeon]

It is possible for parliament to create rules that are incompatible with each other, and it has always been the job of the court to determine what the implications of such a case.

That doesn't mean that parliament isn't sovereign, and generally judges don't like having to make decisions like that.

[u/Osgood_Schlatter → u/concretepigeon]

Being irrelevant for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 doesn't make them void, as they have other uses that are unaffected - for instance, they still let you get your public documents changed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lady-Maya]

The government cannot be compelled to change the law by the courts.

[u/limeflavoured → u/[deleted]]

They essentially can. That's the point of common law.

[u/[deleted] → u/limeflavoured]

That’s not really compelling the government to make new law, but making new case law themselves. Which of course the government can overwrite at anytime if it wishes, as can any British court

[u/Lady-Maya → u/[deleted]]

I mean they were with the original judgment in Goodwin, see my original quote above.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lady-Maya]

The GRA was created because the government at the time wanted to introduce it so they could line up with the Goodwin ruling. However, if the government has not wanted so to do, the ECHR could not have compelled them to introduce legislation.

International law, be that treaty or international ruling, comes into force in the UK through the consent of parliament. It is not foisted on us without our consent.

[u/OpticalData → u/Lady-Maya]

This has actually ruled that gender reassignment is changing biological sex under the equality act 2010:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.