Background on the Case
In a recent and controversial case, “Women Scotland Ltd. v. The Scottish Ministers,” the UK Supreme Court ruled that, under the Equality Act, a person holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) cannot be legally considered a woman. The decision was based on the interpretation that terms like “sex,” “man,” and “woman” exclusively refer to biological sex.
Who is affected and why it matters
This case has significant implications for transgender women in the UK, as it denies their legal recognition based on self-identified gender. The ruling aligns with a growing trend of conservative movements that challenge the legal equality of transgender individuals, relying solely on biological criteria.
The Controversy and Concerns
While the judgment does not eliminate protection against discrimination based on gender transition, its implications in denying self-identified gender are alarming. This debate falls within a broader movement that adopts a binary and conservative view of gender, questioning the legal equality of transgender individuals based purely on biological factors.
This approach commits a logical fallacy by confusing gender identity with biological sex or genetics, which should not be determinant factors in human rights matters. Legal and state institutions must prioritize the human rights of individuals who identify with a gender concept, regardless of their biology, as part of their free personal development.
Self-identification vs. Biological Factors
The principle of self-identification should form the basis for legal identification, as it lies within the realm of individuals’ free personal development. Transgender people should be identified with the gender they freely choose to live, which differs inherently from their biological or genetic circumstances. Equating both perspectives would inevitably lead to inequality and gender-based discrimination, as evidenced by the UK case.
Judicial Precedents: A Comparative Perspective
In contrast to the restrictive UK view, exemplified by the “Women Scotland Ltd. v. The Scottish Ministers” case, the Electoral Power Judicial Tribunal (TEPJF) in Mexico has set significant and progressive precedents in the political-electoral arena.
TEPJF’s Progressive Rulings
In 2018, the TEPJF determined that a transgender person’s publicly declared gender identity is sufficient for their inclusion in candidate parity percentages (SUP-JDC-304/2018). This stance was further solidified in 2022 when the tribunal affirmed trans women’s full right to occupy positions reserved for women without affecting parity principles (SUP-JDC-74/2022). Most recently, in 2024, the TEPJF ensured that a trans woman’s gender identity should not hinder her political participation or access to popularly elected positions, thus upholding parity principles (SUP-REC-1182/2024).
The Importance of Self-Identification in Elections
These rulings by the Electoral Power Judicial Tribunal underscore the significance of self-identified gender in electoral matters, reinforcing a commitment to an inclusive democracy that respects the human rights of transgender individuals.
