From what I’ve read, it’s about the definition of “women” in the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which specifically and separately mentions protections for transpeople. Basically, the document would be rendered very confusing otherwise, and they’re lawyers first.
When I heard it was unanimous, I knew there had to be more to the story. Unfortunately it’s the kind of context that doesn’t fit in headlines.
Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things. They were even at pains to say this isn’t a victory for either side, probably because they saw the media circus coming.
It might be damaging. I don’t know where this goes next, although I’m sure you’ll share some ideas. It’s questionable that the legislation was written that way in the first place, but I guess it was 2010 and we should just be glad trans people are in there. That’s really all I have to say about that part.
Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things.
Uh huh.
If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.
They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.
The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.
The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…
That’s really all I have to say about that part.
Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.
From what I’ve read, it’s about the definition of “women” in the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which specifically and separately mentions protections for transpeople. Basically, the document would be rendered very confusing otherwise, and they’re lawyers first.
When I heard it was unanimous, I knew there had to be more to the story. Unfortunately it’s the kind of context that doesn’t fit in headlines.
If this were protecting trans people, it wouldn’t have been brought to court by a transphobic group, or the win celebrated by them.
This actively excludes trans folk from vital protections and exposes them to environments that increase their risk of violence.
There’s no context that makes this anything other than incredibly damaging to trans folk
Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things. They were even at pains to say this isn’t a victory for either side, probably because they saw the media circus coming.
It might be damaging. I don’t know where this goes next, although I’m sure you’ll share some ideas. It’s questionable that the legislation was written that way in the first place, but I guess it was 2010 and we should just be glad trans people are in there. That’s really all I have to say about that part.
Uh huh.
If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.
They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.
The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.
The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…
Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.
I would actually recommend trans people don’t start pointless fights on the internet, as well.
Why would I care what your uninformed opinion on my response to oppression is?