The ‘trans’ scam is falling apart by the day. Hard on the heels of the White House declaring that there are just two sexes, which cannot be interchanged, and just days after an Australian judge blocked a child from ‘transitioning’ and ruling that ‘gender experts’ lied, a landmark decision in the UK has demolished the lie that ‘trans women are women’.
The UK’s highest court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman under anti-discrimination law refers strictly to someone who is biologically female, in a decision hailed by gender-critical campaigners but condemned by trans rights advocates as a serious setback for equality.
‘Equality’ in what? Just what ‘rights’ do men in dresses have that normal men don’t?
One thing they won’t have any more, in the UK at least, is the right to wave a bit of meaningless paper around while they wave their dicks at little girls in the women’s change rooms.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the terms “woman” and “sex” in UK law must be interpreted as referring to biological sex. This means that a transgender woman, even if she holds a gender recognition certificate (GRC), is not considered a woman under the law.
The sad part about this is that we even needed a judge to tell us what everyone with a sound mind already knew.
Handing down his judgment, Supreme Court deputy head Lord Patrick Hodge said: “The central question on this appeal is the meaning of the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act. Do those terms refer to biological women and biological sex? Or is ‘woman’ to be interpreted as extending to a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate?”
Even so, in true Soviet fashion, the judge is forced to still participate in the lies even while busting the lies.
By that, I mean a person born male who now possesses a gender-recognition certificate amending her gender to female, and ‘sex’ to be interpreted as including what I will refer to as ‘certificated sex’. The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.
Did you notice that? “Amending her gender to female.” “Biological woman.” “Biological sex.”’ The last two are tautologies at best, but the pervasiveness of the deceit is such that even as the judge rules that men are not women, he ends up using the female ‘her’ to refer to a male.
Still, at least they’ll be able to keep the autogynephilic male predators out of women’s spaces in the UK, now.
Maybe.
As part of the ruling, the court said transgender women with a GRC could be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”. Single-sex spaces include female-only toilets, changing rooms and hostels.
What does he mean by “proportionate”? A close reading of his ruling suggests that there may be wriggle room for the creepers in dresses yet.
“If sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female-only nature of the service ... would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status,” the five justices said in their 88-page report.
“If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.”
Still, what does this ruling mean, in practical terms?
The issue was whether transgender women with gender-recognition certificates (GRC) who assert that they are female become women in the eyes of the law, and share women’s legal protections. Britain’s top judges have now ruled emphatically that they do not, and the implications for Westminster and beyond will be vast.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission will produce guidance telling organisations that they must apply biological sex when relying on the Equality Act. Organisations from the NHS to the police will have to review their policies to ensure that they are applying the law properly.
Private companies will also need to review their systems, as will sports clubs and bodies that represent professions.
UK court rulings being ‘persuasive precedents’ for other common law countries, the ruling will inevitably impact Australian courts. Not least, the recent Federal Court “Tickle v Giggle” decision. This involved a man cosplaying as a women, whom he dubbed ‘Roxanne Tickle’ and demanding access to a women-only website. That case is expected to go to the High Court, where the UK ruling must be a factor in the court’s decision.
The UK ruling also sheds harsh new light on Tasmania’s laws, which have been used to prevent lesbian women from excluding males from their events.
