Another voice

I read today that another significant voice has joined the chorus. Lady Hale, the former chair of the Supreme Court, has said that the ruling of the Supreme Court as regards the Equalities Act has been widely misinterpreted. She, like Lord Sumption, points out that the ruling does not mean that there is an obligation to exclude trans people from any single gender space, merely that it isn’t unlawful to do so. She was speaking at a literary festival which had provided unisex facilities in defiance of the interim guidance by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 

Interestingly she, like some others, expressed scepticism about the very concept of “biological sex”. 

Unfortunately no matter how learned Lady Hale and Lord Sumption are they have no formal role. But I think it’s safe to say that, unless parliament changes the law, the EHRC can be safely ignored. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judgement day

 I don’t suppose many trans deniers have read the full judgement or the law report. It is being widely interpreted (including, shamefully, by the media) as setting out an all encompassing legal principle that sex and gender in law refers to “biological sex”. It doesn’t. It points out that the way the Equalities Act (“EA”) refers to sex, particularly as it relates to discrimination regarding pregnancy cannot make sense unless sex means biological sex.  In other words, (a) the judgement applies to the EA and no other statute; (b) the Gender Recognition Act (“GRA”), remains in force. The GRA states that the possession of a gender recognition certificate makes the holder their assigned gender for all legal purposes unless specifically disapplied; (c) the EA offers protection to trans people elsewhere. It seems to me that sets up possible areas of conflict where treating a trans woman as a man creates discrimination of itself. I’m not a lawyer. I will leave it to lawyers to sort th...
Read more

In the beginning……

 The recent High Court judgement about the meaning of sex for the purposes of the Equalities act has released a flood of misinformation about the judgement itself and about gender reassignment in general. Unfortunately those who are more sympathetic to the trans community and some trans people themselves can damage their case by name calling, launching ad hominem attacks and even threatening actual violence. Their anger is understandable. I (a cis male) share the anger. But I think it’s time to make the case for better understanding and acceptance of the concept of gender reassignment in a more measured way.  Maybe I, as a retired small “l” liberal can’t do much, but this blog is my small attempt to help, not just the trans community but to help cis people to understand and be more accepting.  I’ll address the various aspects of the law that the judgement raises, the practical aspects of transitioning and being trans, the science, and maybe even a bit of philosophy. ...
Read more

The fall of a once great man

  I was very disappointed yesterday to read the comment piece in The Times by Trevor Phillips, that once great advocate of equality and human rights. It appears that Phillips now believes equality and human rights are all very well unless you’re trans.   Phillips cloaks his arguments in Latin quotes and allegories, but in essence his argument against trans rights, (and maybe even the right of trans people to question their birth gender, it isn’t clear), is “it’s what we all know to be true isn’t it?” Well no Mr Phillips.  He quotes his own involvement in advising the government on The Equality Act when it was being drafted. He says that if people believed trans women were women it wouldn’t have been necessary to provide for specific protections for trans people in the equality act. But hang on. It’s precisely because there are people like Phillips that don’t believe it’s possible to change your gender that the act had to make it clear that, yes, some people do.  Wors...
Read more