Key takeaways of court ruling on legal definition of woman
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex.So as the dust settles on the ruling, what can we take away from it?
Clear ruling
Firstly, it provides much greater clarity than many expected. The judges ruled that when the term "woman" is used in the Equality Act it means a biological woman, and "sex" means biological sex.It also makes it clear that if a space or service is designated as women-only, a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have a right to use that space or service.The Supreme Court justices argued this was the only consistent, coherent interpretation.
Public bodies to review evidence
Many public bodies will now be reviewing their gender policies, but how much day-to-day change we'll see is going to take time to find out.There is already Equality Act guidance which allows for women-only spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards in certain circumstances.It says this could be for "reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety."So, where organisations want and where appropriate, they can already point to this to justify single-sex spaces.However, cases like that of the nurse, Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after refusing to share a changing room with a transgender doctor, are likely to be reviewed.On Wednesday NHS Fife, the health board involved in the case, told the BBC it noted the clarity provided by the ruling and would "carefully consider the judgment."
Implications for sports
In sports, there have been particularly heated arguments over whether or not trans women should compete in women's categories.And in recent years, many sports have tightened up rules around transgender athletes at the elite levels. Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women's events.Other sports have put in place eligibility criteria. Earlier this month the English Football Association introduced stricter rules, but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women's game as long as their testosterone was kept below a certain level.Again, Wednesday's ruling's straightforward statement that a woman is a biological woman provides a much clearer framework for those debates, and could see rules changed in various sports as a result.
GRC certificates
The Supreme Court justices emphasised that transgender people already have protections against discrimination and harassment written into the Equality Act.The arguments in court centred on whether trans women with gender recognition certificates (GRC) should be treated as women by the Equality Act.The Scottish government had argued that sex can be legally changed via the gender recognition process, and a transgender person with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should have the protections of that sex.Campaign group, For Women Scotland, argued that these protections should only apply to people that are born female.Relatively few trans people have GRCs and the judgment concluded if they were treated differently to those who do not have certificates, it would create an unworkable two-tier system of protections for the group.Some people in the transgender community now worry GRCs have lost their legal weight and will only serve a symbolic purpose from now on.
Next steps
Trans rights campaigners have said they will be examining the judgment closely to decide on their next steps. It is possible they could attempt to put pressure on the government to change the Equality Act.The Scottish government has also said it will need to work with the UK government to understand the full implications of the ruling.So, while the judgment provides clarity on the law, the jury is still out on its practical impact.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
