最高法院裁定 以生物性別界定女性

https://www.instagram.com/p/DIuLZFIM5P9/

英國最高法院（Supreme Court）裁定，《平等法》（Equality Act）中「女性」定義為生物女性，並指「性別」指生物性別。英國平等及人權委員會（EHRC）主席Baroness Falkner表示，如英國國民保健署（NHS）不依新指引改革，將會採取行動追究。

目前NHS指引允許跨性別人士按自我認同使用設施，惟新裁決要求根據出生性別劃分。Baroness Falkner指，醫院病房、更衣室及庇護中心等單一性別空間，必須以生物性別劃分，否則失去「單一性別」的意義。

英國政府表示歡迎裁決，認為有助服務機構清晰執行法例。保守黨領袖栢丹娜 (Kemi Badenoch) 亦指，檢討性別及平等法例是「好主意」。不過，蘇格蘭綠黨議員Maggie Chapman則憂慮，裁決會加劇社會文化戰，影響跨性別人士使用設施的權利。

好奇 人類六千年歷史, 只係其中4年曾經有過黑同白既爭議
點解一錘定音後會影響跨性別人士使用設施權利?
咁4年前跨性別人士係用D咩既?
定呢4年先突然間由地殼爆左堆跨性別人士出黎?
點解泰國冇呢類問題 但西方文明國家有? 唔通西方文明國家劣質D?
泰國又點解決跨性別人士使用設施問題既?
定泰國跨性別人士唔去廁所唔游水唔去健身架?

真係做完手術果d都唔比好似極端左d

個d比 要做完手術 同政府搞改性別
你就法定上變左性
佢宜家講緊自我認同個d禁止

人類歷史幾千年都係父權制度
女人要聽男人話
咁近幾十年婦女平權一次過顛覆哂人類嘅體系
摧毀社會生育率
打冧保障男性升中嘅分梯隊措施
用women programmes直接搶哂啲舒服文層工
權利就拎盡
義務唔負
搶哂男性嘅權益同既得利益

點解你唔去反咗女權先？
莫名其妙

咁台灣拳手yt 大哥係咩

因為跨性別根本係虛構出黎

英國民主最黑暗一天

因為性別唔係主觀，而係有客觀生物事實囉

DLLM，呢D十九概念都要法院去判，common sense唔知幾時咁柒唔common，應該未來要redefine人類，有AI同機械人加持

人類終於回歸common sense
好多人無視生物事實，覺得性別完全係自我認同，真係好好笑

唔係話唔同意你講嘅嘢
只係喺相同原則下
「唔屬於你就唔屬於你」呢個概念
其實喺好多地方已經apply緊
(1)器官移植
(2)新器官培植
(3)基因編輯Crispr
(4)人機合一: Neuralink 你嘅大腦思維同資訊係「出緊貓」
(5)特殊情況下更改身份證出生日期及年齡:
例如伊朗難民,拉登親屬,卧底,政治庇護等
(6)絕育手術人為干涉生物本能
(7)墮胎手術人為干涉自然生物運作
(8)整容手術:女性豐胸手術及整容手術
欺騙男性擇偶條件
男性斷骨增高手術欺騙女性擇偶條件

明白有唔少人喺一時三刻好難去適應到新嘅概念
但個社會嘅事實運作其實遠比思象複雜

無鳩嘅男人囉

現實唔會同佢地做戲，男就男，女就女

扮女人始終都係扮，假的真不了

係短鳩嘅男人

跨性別真係好撚煩

有病睇精神科啦，政府有津貼

你呢度講既咁多例子，冇一個係類到變性
我諗你理解錯左，唔係話人為干涉自然就唔啱，而係你唔可以有生物基礎下做個手術就可以改變你本質

例子嘅話，就係一個人做手術令自己似其他動物，跟著好相信佢自己真係個隻動物，但無論佢點似佢始終唔係嗰隻動物，呢個係生物本質上決定咗

我亦認為話人地唔適應新概念同理解唔到社會複雜性真係太自大大部分唔同意既人覺得跨性別既論點站唔住腳

我個人黎講就覺得如果真係有人有性別障礙，你做手術令自己好過d絕對冇問題，我亦都會出於尊重叫你自我認同既性別，但我知你始終唔係個個性別

好奇天生既第三性別點界定

以前個啲係想成為男or女
佢地可行嘅情況之下都會盡量接近佢想成為嘅性別嘅模樣
依家有啲就佢話自己係就要人地認同佢係
所以分別就係呢到

錯，今次英國最高法院對生理性別嘅定義係睇出世嗰陣，之後做咩手術都冇用

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

(1) Terminology
6. We are aware of the strength of feeling which has been generated by the disagreements between campaigners seeking to represent the interests of each of these groups and that taxonomy itself can generate controversy. We are content to draw on the terminology used by the Scottish Ministers in their written case for the purposes of this judgment and have adopted the following terms. A person who is a biological man, ie who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans woman”. Similarly, a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans man”. We describe trans women and trans men who have obtained a gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) under the GRA 2004 as “trans women with a GRC” and “trans men with a GRC” respectively and their gender resulting from the GRC as their “acquired gender” or “acquired sex”.

7. We also use the expression “biological sex” which is used widely, including in the judgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth, and we use the expression “certificated sex” to describe the sex attained by the acquisition of a GRC.

(21) Summary on the EA 2010
264. For all these reasons, this examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable. In other words, in relation to sex discrimination (for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1)), a person with the protected characteristic of sex has the characteristic of their biological sex only: a trans man with a GRC (a biological female but legally male for those purposes to which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 applies) is a woman for the purposes of section 11 and a trans woman with a GRC (biologically male but legally female for those purposes to which section 9(1) applies), is a man and not entitled to be treated as a woman under the EA 2010. This conclusion does not remove or diminish the important protections available under the EA 2010 for trans people with a GRC as we have explained. To the contrary, this potentially vulnerable group remains protected in the ways we have described. In these circumstances, and notwithstanding that there is no express provision in the EA 2010 addressing the effect which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 has on the definition of “sex”, we are satisfied that the EA 2010 does make provision within the meaning of section 9(3) that disapplies the rule in section 9(1) of the GRA 2004.

英國可以咁極右法西斯架咩