The Supreme Court did not say the legal definition of 'woman' is based on your 'biological sex' for all legal purposes - it is for the Equality Act only.
Which is fucking terrible on its own and sets a precedent
But please don't let the inaccurate article titles convince you that all is lost.
This does not change:
- the GRA's legal pathway to getting a GRC (including issuance of new birth certificates - which ensures the appropriate gender identity for marriage/civil partnership, and pension rights provision)
- or the the EA's protection of trans people from discrimination on the basis of gender reassigment.
- or access to changing your gender in administrative areas - like the marker on passports.
TERFs may be celebrating this as resulting in total exclusion of all trans women, both with or without GRCs, from 'female-only' spaces.
This is not true. Today's decision did not allow that - sex based exceptions for 'proportionate' reasons was and still is the rule.
If a trans woman is excluded from a women-only space -
Today's ruling means she cannot claim sex-based discrimination as a woman. But, she can still claim she was discriminated against based on gender-reassignment. However, like I said, the Government has already said this sort of sex-based exception would be legal under the EA if it's for 'proportionate' reasons. (In its arguments, today's judgement confirmed that). It's still unclear if today's judgement will have any effect on this - other than groups feeling emboldened by it to exclude trans people. Or law-makers being encouraged to amend other legislation.
The ruling is still horrifying, and all outrage is totally justified.
But I want to make clear that what TERFs are claiming about the practical legal impact of this judgement on single-sex spaces is not true.
Neither is the claim that the legal definition of 'woman' no longer includes trans-women in any law other than the EA.
