The supreme court didn’t rule on the definition of ‘a woman’ – this is what its judgment does mean | Sam Fowles

R.The headlines say that the Supreme Court has ruled “the definition of women.” However, he did not. As the court says, in paragraph 2 of Ruling: “The role of the court is not the chapter [Equality Act] 2010.

So what is the court’s decision in reality? In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed a law that encourages public councils to own 50 % for women. For women Scotland, which is a group He describes himself As “Work to protect women’s rights”, the court requested that the law be revealed because it included sexually transformed women. She followed a series of legal challenges that eventually made her way to the Supreme Court.

The essence of the court’s decision is (in wide strokes) as follows: A) The gender recognition law stipulates the year 2004. [gender recognition certificate] Sex is treated as mentioned in GRC “for all purposes” unless the platform stipulates otherwise; B) though Equality Law 2010 It is not explicitly mentioned, it contains different references to the word “woman” in contexts where it is more logical if she is read as a “biological woman”; C) The equality law refutes the assumption in GRA, and for its purposes, “women” are biological “” women “(” The Association of Independent Countries “), and accordingly, the law of 2018 must be read as with the exception of the transformed women of the” women “category.

For women Scotland Arise Nearly 250,000 pounds to finance its case. However, the decision leaves the legal rights of women in the Association of Independent Countries. However, what you do is to make the legal scene equal equality is significantly more complicated. Previously, the equality law was simply interpreted: the people who were born with women or have GRC were women for the purposes of action. Another section of the law provided protection to those who undergo “sex reset” (whether they have or not.

The court’s decision means that there are now multiple legal categories of “women” and “men”, each of which calls for a different interpretation of the law: the international bonding women, the transit women with GRC, the transit women without GRC, the men of the Association of Independent Countries, the converted men, and the passing men without GRC. The court admitted that in the event of a distinction between a passing woman because someone who thinks she is a woman of the bond of independent states, she will remain eligible to submit a demand for sexual discrimination in the same way as the woman of the bond of independent states.

What about the practical effects of the decision? As of 2020, According to what was reported, there were no passing women working in public councils. Transfer people constitute about 0.44 % of the population of more than 16 years in Scotland. The chances of a woman of the Association of Independent Countries, who is losing the position of general board of directors for a woman who is equally qualified, disappears. The 2018 Law will continue to be allowed to appoint a passing woman before a qualified biological woman equally if the appointment can be justified on the basis of “her characteristics or her own situation.”

Regarding the broader effects of the decision, there are some suggestions that this may only affect women’s groups who want to exclude transit women. He will not do it. The law has already allowed such exceptions. (Although some groups will feel more confident in their use after this decision.)

The court was clear that the transformed persons (regardless of whether they had GRC) still have the right to protect under the Equality Law (generally as with biological women). Some departments of the law, which explicitly indicate “women”, will be limited to the women of the Association of Independent States. However, the vast majority of this is unlikely to affect converted people, otherwise protection is repeated elsewhere in the act. For example, Article 17 of the Law, frankly, indicates “the treatment of unfavorable women because they breastfeed” as an example of discrimination against women on the basis of sex. The court’s decision indicates that the transit woman is not protected by Article 17. However, this discrimination is still prohibited by the 7 and 13 parts (which prohibits discrimination against converting persons).

No converted people were represented during the case – retired judge Victoria Mccolaud Per reason has been rejected To join the litigation. However, despite the limited access to the decision itself, it will have any doubt about other effects. The court asked politicians and activists not to implement its decision to achieve political gains. Moments after its publication, some politicians and activists did so exactly.

It must be remembered that this is not a mere discussion – it involves real people. Cross people, for example, are now Two times most likely As people of the Association of Independent Countries to be a victim of violent crime; 62 % -73 % report Exposure to harassment.

This is not the Supreme Court’s mistake. All that the court can do is the interpretation of the law set by Parliament. Judges analysis is forensic medicine, balanced and rational. However, their decision indicates that Parliament urgently needs to consider the equality law. If politicians focus more on legislation, and less than just making cheap political capital, this issue may never be necessary.

• Sam Fwelz is a lawyer, author and broadcaster

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our Messages Please section Click here.