Equality Act s11 Sex & s. 212 (1) General interpretations

[Lovelyricepudding]

11. Sex
    In relation to the protected characteristic of sex-
    (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
    (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

12. General interpretation
    (1) In this Act-
    "man" means a male of any age;
    "Woman" means a female of any age

Okay. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, OP.

'man' and 'woman' are defined in law as referring to sex.

The Forstater judgement also confirns that under common law sex is immutable and that we have the right to believe that a transfer person is still their natal sex. It goes on to say that this belief "may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society"

If the law defines these words this way and the courts say it must be tolerated, what basis does MN have to censure them when used generically?

If the law defines these words this way and the courts say it must be tolerated, what basis does MN have to censure them when used generically?

That's a valid question.

As an aside I had not realised the extent to which the forstater judgement referenced the profoundly undemocratic 'Equal Treatment Bench Book' until now.

In pure logic terms, if A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Hence the following holds true:

1. Transwoman = adult human male.
2. Adult human male = man
3. Therefore transwoman = man.

Yes Leafstamp that is the clear legal position (as well as the biological one). Transwomen without a GRC are legally men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Therefore they must not be discriminated against compared to men without this protected characteristic. Transwomen with a GRC can also be treated differently from women where necessary to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of women and in sport.

If the law defines these words this way and the courts say it must be tolerated, what basis does MN have to censure them when used generically?

The basis would be MN's terms of service.

MN terms of service must comply with the law.

The court didn't say that GC views must be tolerated under any circumstances, though - and IiRC, the judge in Forstater
specifically stated that the decision didn't mean misgendering people would be acceptable.

I missed the deleted threads in question today so I don't know what was deleted or why, but the law is still evolving on this point and much of it is still open to interpretation.

The court DID NOT say misgendering people was unacceptable - it said "This judgement does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'misgender' trans persons with impunity. The claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case."