What are non-physiological aspects of sex? Section 7(1) equality act 2010 refers to “physiological or other aspects of sex.” What are these other aspects of sex? In other words, what does this “or other” clause refer to?
The cited provision is: A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. This language originates in the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999. This statutory instrument was made in response to a 1996 decision of the European Court of Justice (P v S and Cornwall County Council, C-13/94) that Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 , regarding equal treatment of men and women, also covered discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. The regulations were made in order to bring domestic law up to date with the EU requirement, by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The definition at the time, found in the amended section 82, was: &quot;gender reassignment&quot; means a process which is undertaken under medical supervision for the purpose of reassigning a person’s sex by changing physiological or other characteristics of sex, and includes any part of such a process So the idea of &quot;other characteristics&quot; or &quot;other attributes&quot; comes from the 1999 version of the law. I expect that the change to &quot;attributes&quot; is simply because the Equality Act 2010 uses the term &quot;characteristic&quot; to mean something else, as it consolidates many different regimes about discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability, etc., all of which are called &quot;characteristics&quot;. The more recent text removes the part about &quot;medical supervision&quot;, and explicitly includes people at any stage of transition. Explanatory Notes to the 2010 Act give the example: A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act. (These notes are not binding in law but they do give a good idea of what the drafters meant to say. The concept of 'passes' is also not the most sensitive language to bring in, since trans people do not necessarily want to measure themselves by their ability to pass undetected, and may present differently in different contexts.) The example shows that someone can have the protected characteristic without having, or contemplating, any change to their body. So from this example, the other attributes of sex would include all those ways in which the man &quot;continues to live as a man&quot;. From general knowledge of trans men, that could include using a masculine name and pronouns; wearing traditionally-male clothes; wearing a binder, baggy clothing, padding in the crotch, or other ways to suggest a more masculine than feminine body; having a traditionally-male haircut; using traditionally-masculine body language; pitching the voice lower; and so on. The situation for trans women would be parallel. These things are all attributes of sex, in that our society abounds in stereotypes of what is a &quot;manly handshake&quot;, or a &quot;girly drink&quot;, or otherwise associated with a particular sex. They are to do with behaviour more than the body.
[…] that prior to 2016, Germany had some outdated […] laws. […] The changes of November 9, 2016, BGBl. I 2460 ff, were brought forward under the impression of the 2015 NYE spike in reported sexual assaults. Particularly incidents around the Cologne train station/cathedral area were widely received. […] outdated rape laws. No, there was no change in the subsection concerning rape. Only editorial changes were made, now following the “new orthography”, less pompous wording/update to today’s parlance, and change in numbering. This meant that no did not mean no, […] If I ask you to “touch me down here” and you say “No” and I take your hand regardless and, without (physical) resistance from your side, place it at the respective location, then it’s sexual assault now, because you said “No”. Previously, it would have required force, e. g. grabbing your hand, to constitute a criminal offense. […] the victim would have to demonstrate injuries from self defence. […] Legally – what the law says – it is not necessary. You will not find a single reference in the law “the victim must demonstrate injuries”. However, successful persecution will be difficult in a he-said-she-said situation. If the court cannot be convinced, it will decide in dubio pro reo (i. e. acquit the accused). This is a general issue of criminal prosecution, though, but people get particularly agitated if it is concerning sexual self-determination. It is notable that a change in law does not bring improvements in that regard. […] a victim being too drunk to consent was not enough […] Previously, there was “in a defenseless situation”. Courts (not the police) interpreted this mostly restrictive. Being drunk does not automatically mean being defenseless (and arguably some people even like drunken sex/having sex while on drugs). Now there is an additional alternative “taking advantage of a person’s physical or psychological condition causing a significant impairment in forming or expressing his will, unless he gives his express consent”. This is a shift toward a subjective assessment of criminality. A sexually very experienced person is well-versed in his capability of giving consent to sexual interactions, whereas a sexually-inexperienced person exhibits “significant impairment” at an earlier level. It is yet to see how courts deal with that. […] When did Germany officially implement this law, […] The changes took effect the next day, on November 10, 2016. Technically, there’s no “implementation period”. However, on November 10, 2016, no lawyer could have definitely answered, for instance, the question “What is a legal definition of ‘against apparent wish’?”
As much as they like Most pieces of legislation have a “dictionary” detailing, for the purposes of that legislation (or generally) what specific words and phrases mean. This can broaden (or narrow) the definition compared to how they are used in normal English. The purpose of this is not to set a trap for the unwary, although this may happen, but to introduce precision and to allow a short defined term to be used in the drafting rather than having to explain what is meant verbosely every time it’s used. Of course, they can’t redefine terms so that they give themselves jurisdiction when they otherwise wouldn’t have it. For example, in australia, the Constitution gives the Federal Parliament the power to make laws about, among other things, “external affairs”. A law that tried to define “external affairs” more broadly than the Constitution does (which it doesn’t, so we fall back on what it means in English) would be invalid.
What protections are there for constituent to MP communications? Not much... MPs are protected by privilege only when they are engaged in proceedings in Parliament, and have no special protection for anything they do outside those proceedings. It’s important to remember that not everything that happens in Parliament is a proceeding. This means that the protections of privilege don’t apply to some things you might expect to be covered. For example, they don’t apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers ... [Source UK Parliament] Unless, I assume, the correspondence is directly related to Parliamentary proceedings.
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case. It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required? In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
If I did punch him , would that be okay? No, that would be Assault and Battery. If you did him serious injury you could face a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm. If you killed him, that would be murder. If you are in the UK, Canada or Australia and you were charged with murder you could claim provocation in an attempt to have the charge reduced to Voluntary Manslaughter. If you were in the US you could attempt to argue "extreme emotional or mental distress" if you are in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code for any of the charges; if successful your sentence would be reduced. I saw people punch one another over this in movies. And I saw aliens invading the Earth in the movies - what happens in the movies if not necessarily true. Kissing my wife is adultery right? No, extramarital sex is adultery. Notwithstanding, adultery is not illegal in common-law countries. I'm pissed and don't know what to do? I sympathise with you but this is not a legal question. Whatever is going on between you, your wife and your neighbour is a social situation; not a legal one.
The US Constitution (broadly) does three things: It defines how the government should operate It places certain powers in the hands of certain individuals (branches of government, federal government vs states, etc.) It restricts the actions and powers of government (originally the federal government, and thought the 14th amendment, the states, and through them, municipal governments). The main thing is that there is a distinction between a governmental organization (which is effectively a portion of the government) and an organization that is funded in whole or in part by the government (The difference being if the government controls the organization or appoints (some of) it's leads, such as the FBI or Federal Reserve). Generally, the latter is not bound by the Constitution; however, it may be bound by laws or grant stipulations. Elaborating on your three questions: Free Speech: Constitutionally, no one but the government is restricted from moderating someone else's speech. There may, however, be legal repercussions, but not constitutional issues. Discrimination on protected characteristics: This is not forbidden by the Constitution, at least not in the way it is is meant colloquially. The Constitution only prohibits discrimination in access to voting, and then only for race, color, sex, and prior servitude. However, such discrimination is illegal, due to laws, such as the Civil Rights Act. A non-governmental organization that receives funds from the government constitutionally is no different than one that does not. Legally, there may be differences.
The last part, about equal suffrage in the Senate, does not expire. The question is whether it can be itself amended out of existence. There has been no test of that possibility. This article argues that this may not be subject to amendment. There is only one way to find out for sure. The idea is that the original intent was that this is supposed to be an absolute clause, but of course that only speaks to original intention (and the original intention is not clear, as the article discusses).