Originally a comment by The Whimster Gap on Words words words.
It shows an astounding misunderstanding – or misrepresentation – of how the law works, too.
From elsewhere in his post:
The science has never been put before the Supreme Court. The full evidence on sex development, on chromosomal variation, on the fifty documented intersex conditions, on what biology actually shows, has never been tested at the highest level because the people it describes were kept out of the room.
I’ll leave aside the asinine idea that people are always expert on their own predicament, and the even more asinine idea that others cannot be more expert. But still: it is not the job of the UKSC to rule on the science. Lismore’s account of that Court is the account of someone whose understanding of the law is drawn from daytime television, and for someone whose understanding of the law is drawn from daytime television.
In his mind, people walk into a courtroom waving documents, shouting “Objection!” and there’s a hiatus in the hearing during which the judges examine their consciences, weep, and then deliver a judgment based on having listened to their hearts. They might applaud, too. There’s probably an orchestra in the canteen to play a rousing theme.
Real life is not like that.
The Supreme Court is not a debating chamber. It determines what the law is, not what it should or should not be. Even in a case concerning trans people, the Court does not have to listen to trans people, any more than a group of oncologists has to listen to people with cancer when discussing how best to interpret a scan.
Leave a Reply