Sinnesfrid
@sinnesfrid.bsky.social
Getting older, probably not wiser. Rediscovered the joy of learning. Philosophy, Law, Politics. Green Party, Limitarianism, anti-neoliberalism.
No, there is only the protected characteristic of sex (male, female, trans male, trans woman) for sex discrimination - it is the same law in all cases. The protecting characteristic of gender reassignment protects against other harms. There can be multiple causes of action in a case.
December 3, 2025 at 5:49 PM
No, there is only the protected characteristic of sex (male, female, trans male, trans woman) for sex discrimination - it is the same law in all cases. The protecting characteristic of gender reassignment protects against other harms. There can be multiple causes of action in a case.
Whoever claimed it did? What matters is the whether the discrimination is a legitimate aim achieved by proportionate means and that doesn't depend on the semantics of "woman" as you seem to think.
December 3, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Whoever claimed it did? What matters is the whether the discrimination is a legitimate aim achieved by proportionate means and that doesn't depend on the semantics of "woman" as you seem to think.
The court itself said that the judgment was not settling the dispute you seem to want it to settle. See paragraph 2 of the judgment, previously brought to your attention.
The principle of common law is that everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited by law. Ergo your claim fails.
The principle of common law is that everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited by law. Ergo your claim fails.
December 3, 2025 at 5:39 PM
The court itself said that the judgment was not settling the dispute you seem to want it to settle. See paragraph 2 of the judgment, previously brought to your attention.
The principle of common law is that everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited by law. Ergo your claim fails.
The principle of common law is that everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited by law. Ergo your claim fails.
They would have to show that discriminating against trans girls was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The law permits, but does not obligate, people to discriminate depending on the circumstances of the specific case.
December 3, 2025 at 5:21 PM
They would have to show that discriminating against trans girls was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The law permits, but does not obligate, people to discriminate depending on the circumstances of the specific case.
It is well within the scope, it is stronger than just the case of a man holding a grc and extends to all trans woman and even men mistaken to be women. Sex discrimination in the EA is not based on certificated sex or biological sex - it is irrelevant - that's the whole point.
December 3, 2025 at 3:44 PM
It is well within the scope, it is stronger than just the case of a man holding a grc and extends to all trans woman and even men mistaken to be women. Sex discrimination in the EA is not based on certificated sex or biological sex - it is irrelevant - that's the whole point.
I've given an example used by the Justices themselves.
If you won't accept their example why should I bother offering another ... they carry more weight than me.
You're no longer offering any argument, just refusing to engage with mine.
If you won't accept their example why should I bother offering another ... they carry more weight than me.
You're no longer offering any argument, just refusing to engage with mine.
December 3, 2025 at 3:30 PM
I've given an example used by the Justices themselves.
If you won't accept their example why should I bother offering another ... they carry more weight than me.
You're no longer offering any argument, just refusing to engage with mine.
If you won't accept their example why should I bother offering another ... they carry more weight than me.
You're no longer offering any argument, just refusing to engage with mine.
As in my last reply that's the point being made by the Justices and why this question of biological sex and certificated sex does not support the claims being made for it. None of this affects the point that the GRA makes a biological male with a grc legally a female.
December 3, 2025 at 3:27 PM
As in my last reply that's the point being made by the Justices and why this question of biological sex and certificated sex does not support the claims being made for it. None of this affects the point that the GRA makes a biological male with a grc legally a female.
That's precisely the point that SC Justices are making and why the article I posted gives an analysis which shows that the claims commonly made for the judgment cannot be supported. Read it and it will become clear.
December 3, 2025 at 3:24 PM
That's precisely the point that SC Justices are making and why the article I posted gives an analysis which shows that the claims commonly made for the judgment cannot be supported. Read it and it will become clear.
Precisely. Legally a transwoman would be treated identically to a biological woman. An example of what you wanted.
Now please read the articles I posted and you'll understand why I think as I do, and if you disagree we will at least know on what grounds.
Now please read the articles I posted and you'll understand why I think as I do, and if you disagree we will at least know on what grounds.
December 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM
Precisely. Legally a transwoman would be treated identically to a biological woman. An example of what you wanted.
Now please read the articles I posted and you'll understand why I think as I do, and if you disagree we will at least know on what grounds.
Now please read the articles I posted and you'll understand why I think as I do, and if you disagree we will at least know on what grounds.
Not my example, the Supreme Courts example. The point is, that GRC or not, a trans woman would have exactly the same claim as a biological woman in that situation - legally, their claim against sex discrimination would be exactly the same.
December 3, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Not my example, the Supreme Courts example. The point is, that GRC or not, a trans woman would have exactly the same claim as a biological woman in that situation - legally, their claim against sex discrimination would be exactly the same.
Who claimed it did?
You wandered off that topic long ago and shifted to the claim that the FWS judgment had established something that the SC itself explicitly denied, in that very judgment - and I offered additional evidence on the point which you refuse to read.
You wandered off that topic long ago and shifted to the claim that the FWS judgment had established something that the SC itself explicitly denied, in that very judgment - and I offered additional evidence on the point which you refuse to read.
December 3, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Who claimed it did?
You wandered off that topic long ago and shifted to the claim that the FWS judgment had established something that the SC itself explicitly denied, in that very judgment - and I offered additional evidence on the point which you refuse to read.
You wandered off that topic long ago and shifted to the claim that the FWS judgment had established something that the SC itself explicitly denied, in that very judgment - and I offered additional evidence on the point which you refuse to read.
I've just given you an example used in the SC judgment by the Justices themselves and based on the Equality Act!
You seem to be grinding an axe here rather than discussing a legal point. Are you after a philosophical discussion?
You seem to be grinding an axe here rather than discussing a legal point. Are you after a philosophical discussion?
December 3, 2025 at 3:05 PM
I've just given you an example used in the SC judgment by the Justices themselves and based on the Equality Act!
You seem to be grinding an axe here rather than discussing a legal point. Are you after a philosophical discussion?
You seem to be grinding an axe here rather than discussing a legal point. Are you after a philosophical discussion?
Why? The law is clear: "for all purposes" except where s9.3 applies.
But here's what the Justices say about clauses in the Equlaity Act from the FWS case:
But here's what the Justices say about clauses in the Equlaity Act from the FWS case:
December 3, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Why? The law is clear: "for all purposes" except where s9.3 applies.
But here's what the Justices say about clauses in the Equlaity Act from the FWS case:
But here's what the Justices say about clauses in the Equlaity Act from the FWS case:
I have. The holder of a GRC is deemed to have the sex of their acquired gender for all purposes except where s91 of the GRA is disapplied by s9.3
A biological male holding a grc with acquired gender of female is legally a woman.
A biological male holding a grc with acquired gender of female is legally a woman.
December 3, 2025 at 2:30 PM
I have. The holder of a GRC is deemed to have the sex of their acquired gender for all purposes except where s91 of the GRA is disapplied by s9.3
A biological male holding a grc with acquired gender of female is legally a woman.
A biological male holding a grc with acquired gender of female is legally a woman.
Yes. Every situation except those where statute disapplies s.91 of the GRA.
December 3, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Yes. Every situation except those where statute disapplies s.91 of the GRA.
Yes, those described in the GRA act s.9.1. The holder of a GRC is for all purposes legally of the sex assigned except where statute decree otherwise:
December 3, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Yes, those described in the GRA act s.9.1. The holder of a GRC is for all purposes legally of the sex assigned except where statute decree otherwise:
Suspect what you like, it's not an argument, unlike those which I've pointed you to and you refuse to read.
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Suspect what you like, it's not an argument, unlike those which I've pointed you to and you refuse to read.
Do your own reading: s248-261 of the FSW SC case.
Have you read this yet?
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...
If so, do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not?
Have you read this yet?
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...
If so, do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not?
December 3, 2025 at 12:46 PM
Do your own reading: s248-261 of the FSW SC case.
Have you read this yet?
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...
If so, do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not?
Have you read this yet?
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...
If so, do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not?
Yes, there are many. Read the Supreme Court judgement, where you will see the Justices making precisely that point.
December 3, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Yes, there are many. Read the Supreme Court judgement, where you will see the Justices making precisely that point.
I'm not litigating anything, this isn't a court. The Supreme Court decided, in its own words, a matter of construction which arose in the context of the EA and the FWS case. A biological female with a GRC assigning male is for all other purposes legally a man.
December 3, 2025 at 8:49 AM
I'm not litigating anything, this isn't a court. The Supreme Court decided, in its own words, a matter of construction which arose in the context of the EA and the FWS case. A biological female with a GRC assigning male is for all other purposes legally a man.