5 hours agoShareSaveAngus CochraneBBC NewsShareSaveJudges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people. The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the legislation. He told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”He added that the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”. EPACampaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including “sex” and “gender reassignment”.Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by “sex” – whether it means biological sex, or legal, “certificated” sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex “for all purposes”.For Women Scotland argued for a “common sense” interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.EPASpeaking outside the Supreme Court following th …
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
[mwai_chat context=”Let’s have a discussion about this article:nn5 hours agoShareSaveAngus CochraneBBC NewsShareSaveJudges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people. The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the legislation. He told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”He added that the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”. EPACampaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including “sex” and “gender reassignment”.Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by “sex” – whether it means biological sex, or legal, “certificated” sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex “for all purposes”.For Women Scotland argued for a “common sense” interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.EPASpeaking outside the Supreme Court following th …nnDiscussion:nn” ai_name=”RocketNews AI: ” start_sentence=”Can I tell you more about this article?” text_input_placeholder=”Type ‘Yes'”]
