CXRAndy
Legendary Member
In which re write any law that's in contradiction of biological fact.The outcome is not quite what you think. You see this as a victory of the rights of the group you say you favour over another. What this case clearly demonstrates is that government is not afraid to emasculate the highest courts in order to assert their authority. In effect it diminishes the very sovereignty of parliament that Brexit was said to ensure. Instead it enabled a power grab.
Women's rights are not protected when human rights are first abused and later abolished. While women's rights might seem to you to be protected, this has not come without cost. When human rights are given as the reason to abolish human rights, we ought know that we have strayed from the path. The SC ruling will not change the minds of those who were already calling for that.
Neither should you overlook the absurdities that result from this legal fiction. On the one hand trans women are woman enough in law to marry a man without it being a same sex marriage. A trans woman marrying a woman continues to be under the law as a same sex marriage. She is now not considered woman enough to pee in a private space inside a public toilet where men are allowed despite the sign on the door, and without available law to exclude them.
End this nightmare once for all