The courts in the UK are not politicised like in the US.
“Judges say the “concept of sex is binary” while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another”
They interpret the law as it’s written (I.e. about sex, not gender), so to change this you would need a new law. It’s not supposed to be a moral judgement.
Decades of gender = sex in legal wording, documents and policy makes it very difficult to detangle the intent of what is meant by sex or gender in each case.
This particularly undermimes obtaining a GRC which updates the specifically labelled ‘Sex’ field on a birth certificate. So now we can have people with legal documents stating their ‘Sex’ being barred from same sex spaces aligning with their documentation.
In which case the ruling, even if one was to accept it as a valid interpretation, let alone its effect on people involved, is arse backwards and has the potential to cause significant harm in the short term.
The Supreme Court doesn’t make the rules, it makes a determination on what the rules mean in context of the body of law. It’s not their fault that Parliament passed a badly worded law. It’s a positive step that the law has been clarified, and now the changes needed can be identified.
There are lots of people in this thread who aren’t familiar enough with how the UK system works (understandably, because it’s not a UK community). A lot of those people have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It makes me wonder how often I get the wrong end of the stick when it comes to US/international politics etc.
I’m fully aware of how the system works, thank you very much for explaining at me. I’m saying the ruling itself is arse backwards and jumps to a lot of baseless and genuinely misogynistic conclusions. It is difficult to read it as an objective clarification on anything, let alone a positive one.
The courts in the UK are not politicised like in the US.
“Judges say the “concept of sex is binary” while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another”
They interpret the law as it’s written (I.e. about sex, not gender), so to change this you would need a new law. It’s not supposed to be a moral judgement.
Decades of gender = sex in legal wording, documents and policy makes it very difficult to detangle the intent of what is meant by sex or gender in each case.
This particularly undermimes obtaining a GRC which updates the specifically labelled ‘Sex’ field on a birth certificate. So now we can have people with legal documents stating their ‘Sex’ being barred from same sex spaces aligning with their documentation.
Yeah it’s going to be a legal mess for a while and I do sympathise with people who are affected. Something for parliament(s) to sort out.
In which case the ruling, even if one was to accept it as a valid interpretation, let alone its effect on people involved, is arse backwards and has the potential to cause significant harm in the short term.
The Supreme Court doesn’t make the rules, it makes a determination on what the rules mean in context of the body of law. It’s not their fault that Parliament passed a badly worded law. It’s a positive step that the law has been clarified, and now the changes needed can be identified.
Exactly.
There are lots of people in this thread who aren’t familiar enough with how the UK system works (understandably, because it’s not a UK community). A lot of those people have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It makes me wonder how often I get the wrong end of the stick when it comes to US/international politics etc.
I shamefully know more about US politics and justice systems than I do about the UK.
It’s just everywhere, on every social platform.
I’m fully aware of how the system works, thank you very much for explaining at me. I’m saying the ruling itself is arse backwards and jumps to a lot of baseless and genuinely misogynistic conclusions. It is difficult to read it as an objective clarification on anything, let alone a positive one.