The good news

The headlines after the High Court’s decision in Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers focussed on  the decision that in the Equality Act, the term “woman” means biological woman. Understandably this caused consternation amongst trans people and their supporters. This was made worse by widespread misreporting which suggested that the effect would be far more far reaching than is in fact the case.

Now that there’s been time to analyse the ruling, there have been a few rays of light. 

I have referred to the fact that the ruling does not mandate the exclusion of trans people from single sex spaces, it merely allows someone to do so. Further reading of the judgement makes it clear that it has to be done “as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim” and it has to be done in the least discriminatory way possible. This implies that judgement has to be made on a case by case basis, so, for example, a blanket ban for ideological reasons would be illegal and discriminatory. Unfortunately any given act of exclusion would have to be challenged in court, but I find it interesting that the Supreme Court justices went so far to try to protect trans people’s rights. I suspect they didn’t like the ruling any more than I do, but the anomaly in the drafting of the act forced their hand. 

Yesterday I understand that the British Medical Association conference passed a motion describing the Supreme Court ruling as “scientifically illiterate” and criticised the judges for not consulting outside the legal profession. 

To be fair to the judges it isn’t their job to decide the rights and wrongs of a law. That parliament’s job. They have to interpret the law as it’s drafted.

However it does mean that doctors across the country agree that there’s more to sex and gender than whether you have a Y chromosome.