I got mad at this article, then remembered that TRAs have to find some way to feel better about this judgment so its comforting for them to say that the silly women spent a quarter of a million pounds only to have their legal rights 'untouched'. This entirely ignores the fact that women can now confidently vindicate and claim rights which for years have been eroded by genderism. Our rights were there, they were just being trampled on and ignored: we lost sporting medals, single sex spaces (in prisons, rape counselling services, changing rooms etc).
I absolutely disagree that before this decision the equality act was "interpreted simply". He says that people who were born women and males with a GRC were women for the purposes of the act. This is wrong - males who didn't have a GRC also claimed to be women under the act. There was great confusion about how the GRA interacted with the act, and whether the interpretation changed depending on whether you had a GRC or not. And this interpretation would mean women who identified as men weren't covered under maternity provisions.
The idea that there are now multiple legal classes of women and man which require different interpretations, which makes the law complicated, is a disingenuous fudge. The Scottish government's interpretation of the act also required multiple legal classes of men and women. The Supreme Court ruled that 'woman' means all females whether or not they have GRCs, and 'male' means all males whether or not they have a GRC. the Scottish government proposed that 'woman' means females without a GRC, males with a GRC (but not males without a GRC), and also sometimes females with a GRC (but not females without a GRC). This was unworkable nonsense.
"The 2018 act will still permit the appointment of a trans woman ahead of an equally qualified biological woman if the appointment can be justified on the basis of their “particular characteristics or situation”." I can't see this happening ever, based on the judgment. As the Supreme Court said, if you favour a transwoman over a woman then it would likely be discriminatory against equally qualified males, so you would have to abandon the entire concept of female only recruitment.
The article breezily skips over the breast feeding provisions etc and doesn't talk about how a major win in this judgment is for transmen who would actually have LOST maternity and breastfeeding rights if the Scottish government had won. But no one cares about transmen, as usual.
"No trans people were represented during the case." Yes, I've heard that a lot. Jo Maugham says that trans NGOs and charities didn't want to get involved in case they got abuse. Trans people should be furious their organisations didn't step up to represent them in this litigation. As for the fact that no individual trans person was entitled to be heard - this case is actually very dry and technical and is all about statutory interpretation. It's purely a question of law. I don't see how getting (presumably emotive) testimony from a trans person would have assisted the court. Amnesty international also fought very hard for the trans position, as did the Scottish government.
The article also talks about the decision having 'limited reach' but then says Parliament needs to 'urgently look at the Equality Act again'. Why? If the decision is so trivial and limited and doesn't change anything, why does Parliament have to look at the Equality act? TRAs seem to want to have it both ways (surprise surprise). The judgment is simultaneously a nothing burger that also is catastrophic for trans rights.