/p>
Finally, Norrie claims that Court’s decision exacerbates bad relations between the trans community and those who insist that gender and sex are biological matters. Bearing in mind that this is chiefly a conflict between men and women — on the one hand, men who want access to women’s spaces, to bully or shame women into accepting opposite-sex intimate care, to elbow women aside in their own sports categories; and on the other, the women who say “no” to those men — the complaint that restoring women’s rights to them exacerbates bad relations is dismaying. If women would only be good and obedient, men wouldn’t have to get angry with them.
Conclusion:
The legal reasoning in Norrie’s blog post is surprisingly weak. In fairness to Professor Norrie, it should be remembered that this is in the nature of a “first pass” at a substantial Supreme Court judgment in an area of law in which he is not a specialist. What is more disquieting is his approach to a conflict between men’s wishes and women’s privacy, dignity, autonomy and safety which displays a tender empathy for men who want to be women while stereotyping women’s meticulously evidenced objections as feigned or hysterical. Norrie’s call for kindness is in truth a thinly disguised demand for submission.
Leave a Reply