I’m surprised that a noted legal scholar as the author would make such a basic mistake in the understanding of the law
For the purposes of all three UK legal jurisdictions gender identity as a legal term is what is referred to in all aspects of UK law as ‘sex’ or ‘sexual identity’. As the noted legal scholar, Sarah L., should have known the judgement in Goodwin v UK [2002] ECHR 588 specifically references ‘gender identity’ as being that of ‘legal sex’ or ‘legal sexual identity’ as was argued by the UK government in front of the court. As the noted legal scholar, Sarah L, should also have known, that precedent is binding on all courts in the UK
I find myself astounded that such a noted legal scholar as Sarah L would fall for a Magical Word fallacy that would have had Freemen-on-the-Land blushing and saying, ‘woah, hang on, that interpretation of the law is really whack’
Of course, one can’t help noticing that the noted legal scholar, Sarah L, also references Fairplay for Women (that noted institute of law) in her wanderings through creatively misunderstanding the Equality Act
Despite what Sarah L wishes to claim the reality is that in almost all circumstances it is an unlawful act of discrimination to bar a trans person from accessing a single sex service of their expressed gender identity
As the Forstater judgement clearly lays out, the idea that a bigot may wish to believe a trans people are not who they say they are is — in both the abstract and practical application — a belief not worthy of respect in a democratic society; one that is incompatible with human dignity and conflicts with the fundamental rights of others; and therefore attempting to bar a trans person from accessing that single sex service on those grounds is an unlawful act of discrimination
Noted legal scholar Sarah L also references women having the right to be strip searched by female police/customs/prison officers, yet seems unaware of A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Another [2004] UKHL 21. A somewhat curious oversight all things considered
One rather begins to suspect that the noted legal scholar, Sarah L, is anything but and instead has no understanding of the actual functioning of the law
Certainly she seems keenly unaware of the tests that the use of an EqA exemption would have to be subjected to, is likewise unaware of the type of test that would be applied, and is unaware of the bar required to reached for the use of an exemption to be lawful (that bar being exceptionally high in regards to service provision for reasons that are immediately self evident in even a cursory understanding of the constitution and how it applies to EqA)
She seems utterly unaware of what that means in legal terms (which in all likelihood also means that she is unaware of why the use of an exemption in regards to a s.7 PC must be applied on a case-by-case basis to each individual)
And again one finds oneself seeing Sarah L repeat the curious canard that women have “sex-based rights”. One wonders if Sarah is able to list those rights? One’s that specifically pertain to cis women only?
