There has to be more of a reason that all the anti-trans legislation have gone throughover there (I mean, aside from JK Rowling’s massive lobbying). Laws might not represent all of the people all the time, but they certainly represent a part of a population.
The Equality Act 2010 used the terms “Woman” (without qualification) and “sex”. Both terms are established in law to refer to biological status, and as the EA 2010 didn’t make provision to change those definitions, then the clause covering women had no legal basis to protect trans people (who were also covered in a seperate clause).
So it seems there was a gulf between the intention of those drafting the law and their legal skill. Certainly in the Scottish Government who seem to have seen the law they wanted to see rathet than the law that was written.
There has to be more of a reason that all the anti-trans legislation have gone throughover there (I mean, aside from JK Rowling’s massive lobbying). Laws might not represent all of the people all the time, but they certainly represent a part of a population.
Not so much anti-trans legislation as that the pro-trans legislation was found to be poorly drafted and without legal basis so was repealed.
What part of it was „poorly drafted“?
The only thing that’s poorly drafted are the demands of „For Women Scotland“.
The ruling allows for trans people to be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services in some situations.
The Equality Act 2010 used the terms “Woman” (without qualification) and “sex”. Both terms are established in law to refer to biological status, and as the EA 2010 didn’t make provision to change those definitions, then the clause covering women had no legal basis to protect trans people (who were also covered in a seperate clause).
So it seems there was a gulf between the intention of those drafting the law and their legal skill. Certainly in the Scottish Government who seem to have seen the law they wanted to see rathet than the law that was written.