Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[TSwizzle]

The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners. Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

Teh Gruaniad

How can we blame this on Trump?

 

[Derec]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

 

[laughing dog]

What a silly OP.

 

[Tigers!]

What a silly OP.

Why is it silly? One way or another the ruling is important.

 

[laughing dog]

What a silly OP.

Why is it silly? One way or another the ruling is important.

Yes, but then why ask about blaming Trump?

 

[Toni]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

I’m not aware that ‘quotas’ for women exist.

The issue seems to pertain to sports, refuges and women’s wards in hospitals, not jobs. Those can be thorny issues for women as they can involve physical safety and maintaining what gains women have made in terms of equity ( in sports). With regards to medical care, patients are generally separated according to whatever condition they are being treated for as modern hospital rooms and wings have specialized set ups, medical supplies and equipment, and medical personnel are typically assigned by special training and education. It is definitely better for someone undergoing heart surgery to be treated by doctors, nurses and other staff with specific tracing rather than an obstetrical team, for example.

You should feel reassured that an employment and wage gap still exists in the UK.

 

[barbos]

The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners. Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

Teh Gruaniad

How can we blame this on Trump?

We can't, we should blame Putin for that and for Trump too.

 

[Tigers!]

What a silly OP.

Why is it silly? One way or another the ruling is important.

Yes, but then why ask about blaming Trump?

I did not ask about blaming Trump.
You seemed to consign the article and the ruling therin to realms not worthy of your attention.

 

[laughing dog]

What a silly OP.

Why is it silly? One way or another the ruling is important.

Yes, but then why ask about blaming Trump?

I did not ask about blaming Trump.

The OP explicitly brought up Trump which makes it silly.

You seemed to consign the article and the ruling therin to realms not worthy of your attention.

I don’t see how anyone would come to such a conclusion when the response to your “One way or the other ruling is important” was “Yes”.

 

[pood]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

 

[ZiprHead]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Yup. Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It seems to me that this law can be subverted. For instance having a transgender man go into a woman's only place, and if they complain, can whip out a copy of the ruling that says that he is still a woman by law.
It can best be done by being organized, and having groups of transgender men and women go to the legally "appropriate" venues.

 

[scombrid]

Musk is stealing data and opening up confidential computer systems to foreign adversaries while the administration illegally ships people to foreign torture units. But this is what Swizetal are concerned about.

 

[Bomb#20]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

Yup.

Nope. Derec is against quotas in general. pood's post does not deserve your "Yup."

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

Two questions. First, when have you ever seen Derec say everyone else who isn't a white heterosexual cisgendered man is a DEI hire? Some employers don't do DEI -- some of them hire on merit and sometimes the best candidate happens to be nonwhite, gay, trans, and/or female. Moreover, quite a lot of the employers who do do DEI discriminate against more people than just white heterosexual cisgendered men.

And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

 

[pood]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

 

[Bomb#20]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

I.e., you said it because Derec is in your outgroup and like any good tribalist you regard your outgroup as interchangeable parts. You have no evidence against Derec; you simply lumped him in with the collective you classify as "people like Derec". That there was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country is not a reason to think other people can't be in favor of quotas not existing merely because you aren't.

 

[Toni]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

Yup.

Nope. Derec is against quotas in general. pood's post does not deserve your "Yup."

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

Two questions. First, when have you ever seen Derec say everyone else who isn't a white heterosexual cisgendered man is a DEI hire? Some employers don't do DEI -- some of them hire on merit and sometimes the best candidate happens to be nonwhite, gay, trans, and/or female. Moreover, quite a lot of the employers who do do DEI discriminate against more people than just white heterosexual cisgendered men.

And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners. Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

Teh Gruaniad

How can we blame this on Trump?

Person complaining about people bringing up Trump... brings up Trump out of the blue.

 

[pood]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

I.e., you said it because Derec is in your outgroup and like any good tribalist you regard your outgroup as interchangeable parts. You have no evidence against Derec; you simply lumped him in with the collective you classify as "people like Derec".

I have a ton of evidence — the contents of his posts.

Also he, and you it would appear, are the actual tribalists. I am anti-tribal, in favor of that dreaded DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Derec is not against quotas. He is in favor of returning to quotas for white, heterosexual, cisgendered men. The evidence of this abounds from his posts.

 

[bilby]

The law is not a good way to settle questions of objective fact. Indeed, the law is a fucking horrible way to do that.

The law is for arbitrating on questions where a single answer is needed, but none is available; It is a way to take a variety of opinions that are causing strife, bickering, and quarrels, and telling those who hold all bar one of the positions to sit down and shut up.

That's useful for running a society, but as a path to the truth, it is no better than a religion - indeed, it's exactly the same as a religion, other than in the matter of who is selected as the arbitrary voice of authority.

"The law says X" is invariably, inevitably, and by design, an argument from authority fallacy. You can use it for loads of valuable purposes, but determining factual information about reality is not one of those purposes.

The judgement cited in the OP adds nothing whatsoever to the ongoing debate about who is a woman and who is not; It just says that if you are making decisions to which the Equality Act 2010 applies, you are not allowed to do so using any definition other than the one the court just decided you must use.

Judges have also, in the past, ruled that the definition of "US citizen" cannot include negroes; That Pi is exactly equal to 3; and that various defendants were able to employ magic and/or the assistance of the devil to harm their fellow citizens.