But I never considered the possibility that the judges would leapfrog Denning's famous folly. Yet that is what they have done.

British justice, eh? 🤣😅😅😅😅😅 Once again, the term is an oxymoron.

In my note last night looking ahead to this judgment (www.facebook.com/share/p/1FEW...), I considered the possibility that the judges might make a politically convenient decision whose legal absurdity echoed Lord Denning's notorious "appalling vista" judgment. >>

The judges of the UK Supreme Court have not just overreached themselves. They have created a definitional crisis which will plague the courts and will bury employers and service providers in a swamp of uncertainty. >>

Maybe the full text of the written judgment will address this, but even so it will be very hard to avoid huge caseloads for lawyers willing to argue the biological complexities. >>

The law and the science now conflict, and in the oral summary of judgment delivered this morning there was no indication that the judges had any concept of the complexity and uncertainity of "biological sex". >>

.

For everyone, it means that the UK is returning to the legally disastrous concept of "biological sex". The problem here is simple: the law regards sex as binary, but the biological reality is that human sex is nor binary. >>

For trans people, this result means an immediate and severe loss of protection against discrimination. It also means a huge loss of privacy, as employers and service providers will be legally required to identify who is trans. >>

In effect, the judges have rewritten the EA as they think it should have been drafted, rather than as it was passed by the UK Parliament. That is an outrageous blow to the purpose of any parliament. >>

This is an atrocious judgment, because it is explicitly based on reading into the Equallty Act 2010 a set of inferred intentions which are nowhere stated in the EA. >>

There should also be warrants for the arrest of Biden, Sunak, Starmer and Scholz, but that seems very unlikely.