The Equality Act 2010 used the terms “Woman” (without qualification) and “sex”. Both terms are established in law to refer to biological status, and as the EA 2010 didn’t make provision to change those definitions, then the clause covering women had no legal basis to protect trans people (who were also covered in a seperate clause).
So it seems there was a gulf between the intention of those drafting the law and their legal skill. Certainly in the Scottish Government who seem to have seen the law they wanted to see rathet than the law that was written.
The Equality Act 2010 used the terms “Woman” (without qualification) and “sex”. Both terms are established in law to refer to biological status, and as the EA 2010 didn’t make provision to change those definitions, then the clause covering women had no legal basis to protect trans people (who were also covered in a seperate clause).
So it seems there was a gulf between the intention of those drafting the law and their legal skill. Certainly in the Scottish Government who seem to have seen the law they wanted to see rathet than the law that was written.