Quote:Judges at the Supreme Court are considering how women are defined in law in a landmark case brought by Scottish campaigners.

It is the culmination of a long-running legal dispute which started with a relatively niche piece of legislation at the Scottish Parliament, but which could have big UK-wide implications.

It will set out exactly how the law is meant to treat trans people, and what it really means to go through the gender recognition process.

Quote:The case started on Tuesday, with judges hearing from lawyers acting on behalf of the For Women Scotland campaign group, which is concerned about the potential impact of trans rights on women's rights.

The Scottish government's legal representatives will address the court on Wednesday, before the judges retire to consider their ruling - which could take several weeks.

At the most basic level, the case centres on what “sex” actually means in law.

(Nov 26 2024, 5:59 PM)komorebi Sigh...

Not sure why they've got to send this to the Supreme Court; seems to me this has already been decided. A woman is anyone who can't inherit a peerage. 🙄 lol

Should a trans woman inherit a peerage over their older sister? Whichever side of the trans debate you stand on – whether you think that biological sex is an immutable characteristic that needs recognition, or that a self-declared gender identity is enough to make you a woman in fact as well as in law – it is surely impossible to have it both ways. If [transgender-identifying man] Matilda Simon is a woman, she doesn’t qualify to inherit a male peerage. Indeed, if she’s a progressively minded person you might wonder why she’s so keen to take advantage not only of a hereditary membership of the upper house, but of the still more reactionary custom of male primogeniture. In so doing, be it noted, she leapfrogs her elder sibling Margaret – who as a natal woman is unable to inherit the title.