The Court didn't mention anywhere in its decision the Interpretation Act of 1978, which would allow for an interpretation of the Equality Act that would better protect trans people >

The Court was reassured in its conclusion by anti-trans sentiment held by some lesbian groups >

The Court further held that it an find no "good reason" to hold that the legislature intended to have sex protections applied to the "complex" reality of trans people >

The Court read various instances in which references to sex, women, and men, are mentioned in the Equality Act, and in other Acts, holding that the ordinary meaning of sex is biological, and that only in interpreting sex in this way the various sections make sense >

Can't thank the panel and organizers enough for a truly wonderful and engaging symposium. @lukemoffett.bsky.social Paula Giliker, Liesbeth Zegveld & Ugljesa Grusic had lots of interesting insights, all will be available in a special issue of KCL Law Journal. @ytlkings.bsky.social ucllaws.bsky.social

Very excited to see the first copies of my book, Tort Liability in Warfare, arrived just in time before the festive season. The book's available online open-access (https://buff.ly/3ZpzqUK) or you can purchase a copy with a 30% discount with code ALAUTHC4 from https://buff.ly/3ZpzzaK