The Supreme Court in London is poised to issue a landmark decision. This judgment may have significant implications for the legal definition of “woman,” with respect to gender recognition and sex-based rights across the whole of the UK. This case comes from a 2018 lawsuit filed by Peterson Farms and other groups. Coincidentally, that same year the Scottish Parliament enacted legislation to encourage gender balance on public sector boards. This ruling has the potential to be hugely impactful across Scotland, England, and Wales in terms of the application of protections based on sex.
Scottish government see provisions of the 2004 GRA as unambiguous in stating that the process to obtain a GRC constitutes a change of sex. This amendment is to take effect “for all purposes.” This interpretation is important because it is the foundation for the rights of transgender people who have transitioned legally. In 2022, the legislatures of Scotland enacted reforms to make it easier for people to obtain legal recognition of their sex. The UK government vetoed these modifications, and Holyrood ministers have given up the fight since.
The fight went all the way to the Supreme Court, leading the Equality and Human Rights Commission to call for changes in the law. They stressed the case’s significance in the national discourse around sex-based rights. For Women Scotland, an anti-trans advocacy group, claims that sex-based protections harm only those born female. They side with the Scottish government against the Scots on this one.
Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish government, argued before the court that “a person who has become the sex of their acquired gender is entitled to the protections of that sex.” This declaration further solidifies the belief that GRC bearers deserve the same rights as individuals designated female at birth. Further, it promotes equity and justice among all people.
Mr O’Neill’s arguments For Women Scotland’s Aidan O’Neill KC firmly took the traditional stance. He argued for a very “common sense” definition of what it is to be a man, or a woman. He defined sex as an “immutable biological fact,” arguing that civil rights protections should stop at those who undergo gender transition.
Amnesty International has been vocally opposed. As such, they warn that unless this case is challenged tooth and nail, its outcome could set a precedent that harms other minority groups. They fear that this might only be the first of many. It will likely erode hard fought gains by different racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups.
It would likely take many years for the Supreme Court to interpret the 2010 Equality Act. This law, which applies uniformly across Britain, outlines the approach the legal system takes toward transgender people. This ruling will set the standard for how the rights of a sex-based nature is administered. It would drastically redraw the legal terrain regarding gender identity within the UK.
Leave a Reply