We’ve seen their response (and their increasingly transphobic rhetoric before the judgement). They are pleased about the “clarity” of the judgement, have apologised for previous more supportive views and are supporting the EHRC guidance.
We've seen the response. The Prime Minister has welcomed the ruling, claiming (entirely wrongly - I mean literally the entire polar opposite of rightly) that it 'gives clarity', and asserted that a woman is an 'adult female', when neither adult or female are gender-determining biological terms.
In short, the Prime Minister - and therefore the government because at some point between Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair we decided we wanted a president and not really a prime minister - has staked out an anti-trans stance, complying with the will (and the hangups) of the gender-fascist movement.
When Keir Starmer has already publicly stated that his position is now that Trans Women are men I think we can already see where their policies will be heading.
Not say horribly transphobic things like that, challenge the judgement, and change the law to re-establish the status quo we've had for 15 years under the EA. Why shouldn't he do those things?
The court judgement only ruled on the Equality Act, not all other legislation, not the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
If you want to put morals to one side for a moment (which we absolutely shouldn't but here we are) Kier saying a trans woman is not a woman is completely, legally, wrong.
He'll have been media trained to within an inch if his life, if he was going to do anything to help Trans people his answer would have been non-committal rather than as definitive as it was.
Comments
If you want to put morals to one side for a moment (which we absolutely shouldn't but here we are) Kier saying a trans woman is not a woman is completely, legally, wrong.