Thread by @MForstater

It is being asked whether #MOMABill needs to say "persons" instead of "women" in order to include females who have legally changed sex to male

My answer: no ...

The GRA is a legal fiction which allows for look throughs - it does not mean other laws can never refer to the sexes

It is recognised that it is necessary for the law to refer to the two sexes - in particular in matters around reproduction, and in anti discrimination law (as well as regulations relating to sport, buildings, healthcare etc...)

For example the laws around fertility treatment are specified as relating to women and men (in their respective biological roles). It is obvious as obvious can be that this refers to the big gamete people and the small gamete people

In the case of "Seahorse Dad" Freddy McConnell, Freddy received treatment for assisted conception (treatment the law says is for women) ...it was argued in the High Court

In the end this point was not ruled on by the Court of Appeal (it was a side issue)

It is clear that a "man" like Freddy has use of services related to pregnancy, while a "woman" like Susanna Hopwood does not

This is not really about direct discrim based on gender reassignment

HEFA regulations do not need to be read as relating to "persons" to accommodate Freddy.

Rather "woman" needs to be read as inclusive of all biologically females, whether they have changed their legal sex or not.

And excluding biologically males even if they hv a GRC saying F

This reasoning can be applied to all laws where sex is mentioned.

Does it relate to the material reality of biology - if so the GRA doesn't apply.

(And it begs the question why there would be laws that apply to men or women which don't relate to biology)

@threadreaderapp unroll please