right
It is specifically written so that it can be decisive to carve out a huge exemption for trans equality and that the Supreme Court can assume it is an inconsistency to assume it is intended to include us.
It was trying to pretend we didn’t exist at the time, but as a result of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) of 2004, it did in part as a result of the Labour Government.
GRA is terrible, and trans people say so as long as they have GRA. It was nothing more than a burden on trans people, further complicating our legal status.
Despite boasting to hand it over many times over the past 20 years, labor politicians have not done so because of their good heart.
They were obliged to provide legal awareness to trans people after being sued by bus drivers based on two human rights articles: the right to personal life and the right to marriage (at least straight marriage).
protection
In some respects, GRA was ahead of its time and there were no requirements for medical or surgical intervention. But in others – what you really count here – it’s firmly rooted in the attitude of litigation in the 70s that needed it.
Corbett v Corbett was a divorce in 1971 between the Baron and his wife, April Ashley.
To avoid paying her maintenance after divorce, he attempted to annul the marriage by claiming that it was legally unbearable as it was a gay marriage. He managed to do so, ensuring his birth certificate as legal gender in the process.
In both the Supreme Court decision and Corbett v Corbett, the division between the inclusion of trans women as women is whether we can give birth.
In Corbett, the judge hints at the implied pregnancy, describing some of their reasoning as “they cannot play the role of women in marriage.”
Challenge
The more our legislative system bottles the concept of sex and tries to neatly divide it into two different groups, the worse it has been for trans people who have long argued that it is probably a little more complicated than that.
Even today, the current labor government faces challenges in this area with regard to non-binary awareness through Ryan Castellucci’s ongoing legal battle.
Castellucci has so far failed in their attempts, but is not upset. However, if they succeed, the workers will once again be tasked with implementing the main law. What it has proved repeatedly is really bad, especially when it comes to trans people.
The Supreme Court decision is a bad law written for the precedence of bad laws and precedence of bad laws and precedence of the divorce case intended to protect the wealth of aristocrats that preceded it.
If another challenge to the legal perception of Castellucci or the government is successful, the temptation is simply to try to build on the above.
learn
Instead, I think we should try to beat it all and try again as we have more voices in me and in the transgender and feminist community.
We need to abolish legal perceptions of sex and properly enforce protections that are not likely to rely on whether people in the 2010, 2004, and 1970s wrote laws that properly consider the living experiences of transgender people.
Whether it’s for transgender equality, women’s rights, or even climate action, if you want to see good laws being built, we have to properly lay the foundation for that. The solution is not to build on what we have when what we have is deeply fulfilled with the problem.
Sometimes the only step forward is to start over and learn from your mistakes.
This author
Gemma Stone is the co-founder of Trans Writes, a transgender-led platform that searches and publishes books only from trans creators. This article is published through the Ecologist Writers Fund. Ask readers to donate and ask some authors to pay £250 for their work. please Donate now. You can learn more about the fund and create applications on our website.
