The SC ruling should be an additional barrier to hormone/surgical interventions for gender dysphoria?

[mids2019]

Just this really.

Attempts to alter your body either surgically or chemically will not alter the law as it now stands and it should be made clear hormone intake of surgery cannot alter your biological sex.

I just worry that extreme transitioners will use any attempted body alteration as a reason to question the law as they will attempt to say the alteration in some ways make a then 'biological ally female'. I worry fake breasts for instance may be used to 'muddy the waters' with this legal clarification and there will be an argument that for instance addition of breasts and removal of a penis (in an extreme example) will warrant challenge to law.

I have a fake vagine=woman could add dealt difficulties possibly in terms of law as it then becomes the responsibility of an individual institution or group to prove biological birth sex to respect the law and this may be a challenge in realistic scenarios.

Will full transitioners act as a test cases for this new interpretation of the law?

Surgery or hormone treatment has never been required to obtain a gender recognition certificate or to be covered by the PC of gender reassignment status. Nothing about that has been changed by the supreme court judgement

I just worry about surgery/hormone treatment being used as means to challenge in public perception the idea of biological sex as well know it. The public aren't going to rally behind 'bloke in a dress' but I do think that there will be a small minority of men with breasts and other superficial changes that will make a case to confront the law at least in terms of public sympathy.

It's against international human rights law to make anybodies rights dependent on them being sterilised which is why genital surgery is not a requirement for GRC etc. I assume that since genital surgery cannot be mandated it can't be used as a reason for wanting rights.

95% of transwomen retain their penis in any case

Have you actually read the judgment?

"We also use the expression “biological sex” which is used widely, including in the
judgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth"

The judgment is publicly available, maybe you should read it:

supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

A biological male with breast implants is still a biological male, though.

Of course activists will continue to use the argument that what counts as biological is subjective, but the legal definition for the purpose if the EA is based on sex at birth, and doctors tend to be quite proficient at working that out.

Missed the at birth comment which I am relieved about. Of course that makes things non ambiguous which is really helpful.

This argument was resolved by the courts in the 1970s (which the judgement mentions).