Why the Supreme Court should rule that men are women. According to the EHRC

[Josnosegay]

New poster, long time lurker. I've been catching up on all the submissions to the Supreme Court in the FWS appeal.

I'm bewildered and utterly disappointed by the EHRCs steadfast faith in the governing party of the day to make things right. In scrupulously even-handed legal analysis, they painstakingly, if reluctantly, build the case that legally, "sex" includes trans and "women" includes men.

"Oh were it not so. Yes it hurts women yes it's very bad law making and it shouldn't be like this. It's going to make a lot of mess, we agree. But Parliament will super for sure fix that when they realise how bad things are ( very bad).

By finally defining "sex" as biological. Like we've been saying for years and being ignored. We were right all along! Sorry not sorry for the generation or so of women we threw under the bus to get here."

I can find no other explanation for their dismaying behaviour.

They're a toothless quango.

Under the EA 2010 you can have a 'legal' sex, and this can be different from the sex observed at birth. I don't see what else the EHRC can say. It's a bad law which needs either repealing or amending so that it is clear that biological sex is meant, not legal sex. Also in need of amendment are the 'exceptions' which allow for excluding e.g. transwomen. These are back to front - the exceptions should be when a transwoman could be admitted.
There is nothing wrong in being even-handed. One would expect this.

Under the EA 2010 you can have a 'legal' sex, and this can be different from the sex observed at birth.

Well that's what's at issue in the Supreme Court case. FWS contend that sex in the EA was always intended to mean biological sex.

The EHRC are not the only ones who believe the GRA and EA2010 create the concept of legal sex. Lady Haldane’s judgement was seen by some GC legal professionals and GC commentators as a correct interpretation, even though they disagreed with the law.

Yes, there are different opinions on this, hence the SC case.

If legal sex is the one that matters you can't have the exceptions. It's the exceptions for example primogeniture that means biological sex is the primary sex and over-rules everything else.

I still find it astonishing that the org responsible for upholding human rights actually went to court to argue for an interpretation of law that means some women are not entitled to pregnancy and maternity rights.

There is nothing good about this. Erosion of freedoms never ends well.

Please could you elucidate? I am very interested.

All the Supreme Court ruled was that the law as written was to be interpreted as Sex = biological sex.

It did not remove or erode any freedoms.

What it did do is restore women’s right to be heard when they say no. It restored the balance so both women and trans people have a right to be treated with dignity and respect.

What we now need to do is to look where it is feasible to add unisex, mixed sex or gender neutral provision as an additional
provision. So single sex female and male prisons, hospital wards, changing rooms, sports etc. are truly single sex but we add spaces or create sporting categories that are unisex/mixed sex/gender neutral etc.

My mind is blow at how some organisations still can’t read the room. They’re making themselves look so silly.

Nothing will take away my joy at the judgement though. It’s only made more entertaining by this flailing around.

It has crossed my mind in the last couple of days that this really could be a turning point for those who genuinely want good things for transitioners.

If those people can pull together and start thinking about what is really needed for those who are medically transitioning and therefore have placed themselves/been placed in some kind of limbo, where they no longer fit easily into the single sex spaces that exist through tradition and past norms then it is now much easier to start again, now they have a solid base to start from, rather than the wobbling tower, where they were trying to take a short cut by hitching into someone else’s rights.

It is a genuine problem that doctors have created, though not women’s to solve. But this is a moment when those who really want to do good for that small group of people could actually take the reins and start to explain to society what they really need, rather than running with what a group of greedy men wanted.