The Supreme Court in Great Britain on Wednesday maintained an appeal by a group of campaigns for women of Scotland in relation to whether transgender women are legally women in accordance with equality, but said that trans people would not be unfavorable by its breakthrough decision.
A unanimous judgment from five judges of the Supreme Court related to whether the transsecting with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document that gives the legal recognition of someone's new sex, is protected against discrimination as a woman under the Act on Equality of Great Britain.
In the case of women in Scotland, they argued the rights arising from the Equality Act should apply only on the basis of the sex determined by a given person after birth. He questioned the guidelines issued by the decentralized Scottish government, which accompanied the Act of 2018 to increase the percentage of women in public sector boards.
The guidelines of Scottish ministers regarding this law were found that transsecting with full GRC was a legally woman.
The “conditions of” woman “and” gender “in the 2010 equality act relate to a biological woman and biological sex, but we will advise you to read this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. This is not, “said Patrick Hodge, vice president of the Supreme Court.
Critics of Scottish law said that its definition can affect the services of one sex for women, such as shelters, hospital departments and sport.
But transgender activists said that if the court ruled in favor of Scotland women, this could lead to discrimination against people with gender recognition certificates, especially in employment issues.
Hodge said that the interpretation of the act on equality “does not cause an adverse situation for trans people, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.”
“Trans people have rights that attach to the protected feature of sex change,” he said.
Opponents, including Amnesty International, stated that by excluding transgender persons from the protection of sexual discrimination in contradiction with human rights regulations.
Amnestia submitted to court, saying that she was worried about the deterioration of Trans persons in Great Britain and abroad.
“The unnecessary policy of prohibiting transmat transmat from one sex is not a proportional means to achieve a legitimate goal,” said the Human Rights Group.
Read the ruling of the Supreme Court of Great Britain: