Protest over Supreme Court gender ruling
More than a thousand people have attended a protest against a legal ruling that biology defines whether or not a person is a woman.
Campaigners walked through Cardiff city centre as part of the trans liberation march.
Supreme Court judges ruled on Wednesday that "woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex".
In their ruling, the judges stressed that the law still protects transgender people.
Protest organisers said the decision was a "backwards step" for equality.
"I joined the Trans Support March in Cardiff today to stand with our trans community across Wales and the UK, following the Supreme Court ruling," said Matthew Lloyd.
"Trans rights are human rights and we must fight any attempt to roll them back. Equality, safety, and dignity for trans people are not optional, they are non-negotiable."
The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - but now comes the difficult part
Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling
Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
In the ruling Judge Lord Hodge said gender reassignment was a "protected characteristic" and there was a legal bar against discrimination based on "acquired gender".
The ruling found the biological interpretation of sex was also required for single-sex spaces, including changing rooms and hostels, to "function coherently".
The judges noted "similar confusion and impracticability" had arisen in relation to single-sex associations and charities, women's sport, public sector equality and the armed forces.
The judges added: "The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California gun ban still alive. For now
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed states to continue to ban semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles, which can be fired repeatedly without reloading and are owned by millions of Americans. But the issue is far from settled. Only two of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the court's decision to deny review of a federal appeals court ruling in September that upheld Maryland's AR-15 ban, similar to laws in California and seven other states. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, said in a separate opinion that the appeals court ruling was 'questionable' and the Supreme Court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.' Thomas, in a dissent joined by Alito, said tens of millions of Americans own AR-15s, and an 'overwhelming majority … do so for lawful purposes.' And in a separate case, the court denied a challenge to a Rhode Island law, similar to California's, that bans possession of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Justices Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The actions reflect the uncertain status of gun-control laws since the court's 6-3 ruling in 2022 that said Americans have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public. Thomas, in the majority opinion, said any restrictions on owning or carrying guns could be upheld only if they were 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation,' dating back to the nation's founding. Based on that ruling, many state gun laws have been overturned, and California has narrowed, though not repealed, its restrictions on carrying guns in public. But the Supreme Court appeared to move in a different direction last June when it ruled 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting, that the government could ban gun ownership by domestic abusers who have attacked or threatened someone in their household. It was the court's first direct ruling on guns since 2022. Kavanaugh's opinion suggested that reviewing bans on semiautomatics or other widely used weapons may be next for the court, despite Monday's denial. 'We are disappointed that some members of the Supreme Court did not have the judicial courage to do their most important job and enforce the Constitution,' said the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-advocacy nonprofit based in Sacramento. 'We are more resolved than ever to fight forward and eliminate these immoral bans throughout the nation, whatever and however long it takes.' The group urged the Trump administration to join a future legal challenge. The administration did not file arguments in the Maryland case, but President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all firearms policies of President Joe Biden's administration and 'protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.' David Pucino, legal director of the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was relieved by Monday's Supreme Court action. 'Courts have repeatedly upheld laws limiting access to highly dangerous weapons,' Pucino said in a statement. 'They are proven measures that protect families and reduce gun violence.' The court left intact a 9-5 ruling in September by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upholding Maryland's AR-15 ban. The appeals court had rejected a challenge to the law in 2017, then was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider it under the standards of the 2022 ruling. The semiautomatic rifles are 'military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the appeals court's majority opinion. A California appeals court gave similar reasons in 2023 for upholding the state's ban on many AR-15-style rifles, which has also been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under California's ban, semiautomatic rifles with fixed ammunition magazines — bullet chambers that require disassembly of the firearm to swap them out — can't hold more than 10 rounds. Those with detachable magazines, which enable swift reloading, can't have any of a number of additional features, such as pistol grips. In other states, the weapons are sometimes sold with forced-reset triggers, which pull the trigger back after each shot, allowing rapid refiring. Trump's Justice Department agreed last month to allow their sale under federal law, withdrawing the government's previous classification of the weapons as illegal machine guns. But California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday he has notified law enforcement agencies that the triggers are still prohibited by state law. In dissent from the 4th Circuit ruling, Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, said 20% of all firearms sold in the United States are AR-15s. 'Maryland's ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,' Richardson said. Maryland's law contains similar restrictions to those in the California ban. It also limits some features and bans semiautomatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The Maryland case is Snope v. Brown, 24-203. The Rhode Island case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 24-131.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Justice Kavanaugh signals the Supreme Court could take up AR-15 bans
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled Monday the high court could soon take up a big case: the constitutionality of AR-15 rifle bans. The court declined to take up a case involving Maryland's AR-15 ban this term, but Kavanaugh wrote the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' NewsNation legal contributor Jesse Weber told me he believes Kavanaugh is right. 'Not only will they hear it, they have to hear it,' Weber said. 'There is so much confusion across courts about when is a gun regulation unconstitutional,' he added. Get ready for this case in the high court at some point in the coming years.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Jay Mitchell to run for Alabama attorney general
Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell announced Monday that he is running for state attorney general. 'This isn't just my race — it's our fight for Alabama's future. I'll take on the radical left, advance the Trump agenda, and never stop fighting for our state,' Mitchell said. Mitchell resigned from the Supreme Court last month. The attorney general serves as the state's top law enforcement officer. Mitchell said in a statement announcing his campaign that he will focus on combating violent crime, enforcing immigration laws and supporting law enforcement. He also promised 'to protect the unborn' and fight what he called the 'woke agenda.' 'No boys in girls' sports. No DEI. No more woke nonsense,' Mitchell said in a statement. During his time on the bench, Mitchell is best known for writing a Supreme Court ruling saying frozen embryos are considered children under the state's Wrongful Death of Minor Act. The ruling allowed several couples to pursue wrongful death lawsuits after their frozen embryos were destroyed in a 2020 accident at a south Alabama storage facility. The ruling temporarily upended IVF services and drew national attention as clinics became concerned about civil liability. Mitchell did not directly mention the frozen embryo ruling in his campaign announcement. Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey is also running for the office. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall cannot seek another term because of term limits. Marshall is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor instead of seeking another term in the Senate.
