It’s a fight that really has only developed as a firestorm in recent years: Men who say they are women, even having chemical and surgical alterations done, and then saying they are “women.”
That means they have the right to use women’s showers and restrooms, and all the rest.
But now, stunningly, a court has ruled that those transgenders are not, in fact, “women.”
The Christian Institute reveals the Court of Session in Scotland has reversed a decision by the Scottish government to widen the definition in its Gender Representation on Public Boards Scotland Act 2018.
That law wanted to include males who call themselves female as “women.”
The case had been brought by For Women Scotland, who said that would undermine the sex-based rights of biological females as protected by the Equality Act.
The court, in a ruling from Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge, found the government lacked the power to do what it wanted. Instead, the ruling said, there would need to be changes to the definitions of “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act itself.
“She said that the Scottish government’s desire to take steps to promote inclusion of women ‘is limited to allowing provision to be made in respect of a ‘female of any age.’ Provisions in favor of women, in this context, by definition exclude those who are biologically male,'” the report explained.
The ruling found that the redefinition of women to include biological males “conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics.”
An official with For Women Scotland, Trina Budge, expressed approval of the decision.
But she said the decision left her group delighted.
The Institute explained that now because of the decision, “other women’s groups have written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to look into the appointment of Mridul Wadhwa as chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Wadhwa is a man who identifies as female, and who does not hold a gender recognition certificate, meaning he is not legally female.”
A man should not have been eligible for that post, his critics are argued.
But the ruling found “transgender women” was “not a protected characteristic.”
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
