Scottish courts ruled, and then upheld in the Scottish government’s favor, that sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex,” and must include those in possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

But that was challenged in London’s Supreme Court by campaigners. And, in its ruling Wednesday, the country’s highest court said the meaning of the terms “sex,” “man” and “woman” in the U.K.’s Equality Act must refer to “biological sex” — with any other interpretation deemed “incoherent and impracticable.”

And here lies the issue. Maybe I am understanding how society and science are defining terms in these cases, but: doesn’t woman/man = gender (which differs depending on culture, time period, etc) and female/male = sex (which is a medical/scientific term)? It appears both sides of the table are trying to make these terms mean something they do not.

Either way, I see no practical point in actually making a law defining these terms, especially when the legal definition is not even correct scientifically speaking. There are so many biological changes that trans individuals go through when they medically transition and society will see them differently if they “pass” in their society. Also, sex isn’t so black and white either.

1234 567 890

The thing about the stock market, no one freaking knows. The market has taken horrible dives before and has recovered. I also don’t believe the USA is the only country that should be worried if something does go down. The fact that some experts are saying things could be different may be worrying, but ultimately no one knows. All we can do is try our best to prepare for the worst. I wouldn’t be surprised if the protests continue to grow over the summer months in the USA.