Pre FWS - how Sex was always distinct from Gender

[SexRealistic]

I’m working on something and need your wise counsel. This will be a helpful list too for people who whinge on about FWS changing the law…. When all it did was confirm the law….

I am looking for pre FWS cases or practical examples that confirm that trans identified people haven’t changed sex.

Examples include:

McConnell v Registrar General - a woman who gave birth couldn’t be registered as a father - even post a GRC

Trans identified women still retain access to maternity and pregnancy protections - if they had truly become men they wouldn’t benefit from these rights. And if they had been stripped away women would have stood up to do something about it.

Trans identified men keep their hereditary tiltes and inheritances under GRA. If they became women then all that benefit would have disappeared. It didn’t because they didn’t stop being men, they just had a gender identity too.

If this is articulated somewhere better please let me know - or just shout out ideas and I’ll go do the research.

Not UK based law - but the sports governing bodies limiting participation to sex on a biological basis in the women’s category would be another example.

Look up the historical cases like Corbett v Corbett and Bellinger.

I’ve got those cases - I suppose I’m thinking more - 2005 -2025 peak trans period where there was a growing delusion man with gender reassignment were women.

These cases or facts post GRA show that men didn’t become women because for most laws they remained men and vice versa.

I wonder if it was just the idea of self ID independently of any law to support. Maybe encouraged by American academia, the Yogyacarta Principles 2006 etc.

Michael Foran’s recent lecture on the law in this area might be worth a listen https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/knowing-ius-podcast/id1754957520?i=1000770565014

Thank you - I also have his book so I’m sure there are some nuggets in there.

I think it’s section 20 of the GRA which is about crime - A GRC doesn’t override specific offences that can only be committed by a man (or woman?).

Also maybe the cases of sex by deception where someone thought their partner was male but actually was female (or vice versa)

There were always a couple of specific examples in the explanatory notes to the EA2010 that made it clear that men with a GRC could be excluded in certain circumstances. ISTR they both reference rape crisis services being one of those areas.

The requirement for a job role to be of the female sex was explicitly allowed to be biologically female only for that reason.

Thanks all - keep them coming

2008

There’s this cross party Government report on toilet provision. It doesn’t hold back - talks about sex in toilets and how the Sexual Offences Act didn’t stop it. It talks about lots of misuse, drugs etc. No where does it mention gender neutral toilets.

Gender is mentioned a lot but as a polite term for the sex of people. Gender Equality Duty mentioned a lot.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcomloc/636/636.pdf

You're correct - one of the examples given reads -

Gender reassignment: paragraph 28
Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.

Background
740.This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Example
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

Services

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Do those come under the EA2010 "proportionate means for a legitimate end" ? ie. where men can legitimately be excluded even with the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment."

Although that didn't help "Sarah" in being able to attend a single-sex rape survivors support group ...

Bluddy Stonewall, encouraging others to break the law

They did. SC judgment supersedes it now though as it’s been clarified that women are female.

Yes @Ereshkigalangcleg the SC judgement is so so helpful in clarifying the law. And means that the interpretation of "proportionate means for a legitimate end" isn't as misunderstood as it has been previously.

A pity that a good proportion of our actual lawmakers are resisting the law.