The UK Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court, unanimously found that the terms “women” and “sex” used in the country’s equality law (a national law prohibiting cases of gender-based discrimination) refer only to individuals who were biologically female at the time of their birth.
For women Scotland, the advocacy groups that brought about the incident tried to clarify that the term “sex” refers only to the gender assigned at birth, based on biological or chromosomal structure.
The group feels clarification is necessary after the Scottish government has ruled out the requirement that it must be medically diagnosed as gender discomfort in order to legally change gender identification, which makes it easier for people to do so based solely on self-identification.
For women, Scotland argued that allowing transgender women to be legally considered “women” in courts would lead to an end to unity institutions and opportunities for women.
The group specifically challenges guidelines issued by the Scottish government, demanding representation of women in the Public Commission and argues that giving trans women designated locations on the board to robbers of cisgender women who hold the same location and does not result in a gender average.
The Equality Act also includes individual specific protections for individuals undergoing gender-affirming surgery, as well as protections based on age, disability, marriage status, race, religion, and sexual orientation.
Instead, the group sought to ensure that transgender women who have obtained a Gender Identification Certificate (GRC) (document given to individuals diagnosed with gender discomfort) undergo surgical transition-related procedures and are not considered “female” for more than two years, and that women will not be allowed to register.
The five British Supreme Court agreed.
They found that the way equality law defines gender is that “the concept of sex is binary, revealing that a person is a woman or a man,” and that certain protections for women “inevitably exclude men.”
The judge also cited practical legitimacy for their argument, saying that it was “meaningless” to be regulated under the Equality Act. [confidential] certificate. “
In reading the ruling, Patrick Hodge, vice president of the UK Supreme Court, warned the public against not interpreting the ruling “as a victory for one or more groups of our society in another society,” namely, the decision to prioritize the rights of women of scientists over transgender women.
Instead, he said trans people, whether they own GRC or not, will continue to be protected by other provisions prohibiting trans-specific discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act.
A statement from the UK government has always supported the protection of unity spaces based on biological gender, adding that this rule “provides ‘clearness and confidence’ for women and service providers, including hospitals, shelters and sports clubs.
Kishwar Faulkner, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Committee, said the committee will update public codes to comply with the ruling.
These codes would prohibit transgender women from entering explicitly designated toilets, wards and sports teams for women. Associated Press.
Faulkner also pointed out there is no law. I need it They encouraged the building to advocate for single sex spaces, as well as transgender people, installation neutral spaces, such as unisex toilets and changing rooms. She also said the committee will continue to protect trans people from other forms of discrimination.
“They have rights and their rights must be respected,” she said. “It’s not a victory over the increased number of unpleasant behaviors towards trans people. We don’t tolerate it.”
Transgender rights advocates expressed disappointment at the verdict, noting that the decision leaves transgender women, particularly those who received GRC or have undergone medical transitions, within legal spheres in terms of which space they will enter.
“My concern is that if the Minister of Equality is pushing trans people to be kept out of these spaces, as they say, there’s nowhere else to go,” said Cleo Madeleine, a spokesman for gendered intelligence. “Frankly, the message we get from the highest equality firm in the country is that they want to get rid of us and they don’t really care where we’re going.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
