A British ruling reopens the debate on the boundaries between gender identity and the rights of third parties, with particular impact on sport, healthcare and the prison system

Full article

Biological sex is the determining factor in assigning a person's sex

Robert John Reed, Lord Reed, President, like the rest of the judges of the British Supreme Court who on 16 April this year signed the ruling that determined that biological sex is the determining criterion for attributing a person's sex, were aware that their ruling would create controversy and conflicting positions.

And so it has been. Sectors of European society have seen this ruling as an attack on the social recognition of transgender people. The truth is that, if one looks beyond the initial superficial analysis of the text of the ruling, one discovers that the ruling in no way questions the right of every free person to choose how they feel and to be socially recognised as such.

To say, as the ruling states, that biological sex is the determining criterion for attributing sex to a person does not seek to deny anyone's right to feel however they want; what it seeks is that this right, its exercise, as respectable as any other, does not harm third parties in certain situations. For example, no one questions the right to private property because in some situations its free exercise may conflict with other rights. This ruling must be interpreted from the same perspective.

This ruling is pragmatic and has direct effects in the field of sport, as it establishes restrictions on the participation of transgender people in order to guarantee the right to fair competition with equal opportunities. No one can deny that, biologically, the male and female bodies have notable physical differences that are not mutable despite people's mental decisions.

This ruling, in addition to having a direct application in the field of sport, will also have an impact on the areas of health, prisons and other social spheres over time.

The countries of old Europe, with all their differences, have one thing in common: their founding origins, based mainly on Judeo-Christian culture, which, with all its flaws, constitutes the most comprehensive guarantee for the defence of individual rights as the basis for the respect of collective rights.

A question of legal balance.