In this era when fierce battles are being waged over gender identities, it could happen that even men with (partial) baldness will seek the status of a person with a disability
Serious hair loss in women represents an impairment that negatively affects the ability to perform everyday activities.
That is the conclusion reached by judges Swami Raghavan and Kevin Poole in one of the most unusual cases in the recent history of British justice, ruling that from now on baldness in women can be classified as a disability.
The story, which turned into a legal saga, began a quarter of a century ago, in 2001, when Mark Sharp and Glenn Kinsey started a specialized company and developed a wig specifically designed for women with serious hair loss problems. Their wig quickly became a hit among balding women because it had colors perfectly matched to natural hair and was placed in such a way that even the most vigilant observers could not notice the extensions.
However, Sharp and Kinsey did not enjoy the fruits of their newfound fame and reputation for long, as the British tax authority intervened. The tax office handed them a bill of £277,000 in unpaid VAT, arguing that their wigs were a fashion accessory and not a kind of orthopedic aid. Sharp and Kinsey were shocked.
They knew the legal battle would be long and exhausting, with the media mercilessly relishing it, but they were determined to prove that their wigs – which cost customers around £2,400 per year for fitting and maintenance – should “qualify as zero-rated products under the exemption for medicines and aids for disabled persons.”
And they were right, at least according to the ruling of judges Raghavan and Poole. The court sided with the wig makers, agreeing that their female clients suffering from baldness should be considered disabled persons.
Lawyers for the tax authority argued on appeal that baldness should not be considered a disability because it is a “cosmetic” problem, and that other characteristics affecting appearance, such as freckles, could also be seen in the same way. But their appeal was in vain. In the ruling’s reasoning, the judges stated that “serious hair loss in women represents an impairment that negatively affects the ability to perform everyday activities.”
— These activities include work, leisure, socializing, self-care, and caring for others — activities that, at least to some degree, mean being visible to others in public — the ruling states.
— It’s not because hair loss physically prevents participation in such activities, but because of the distress that a woman with severe hair loss would usually experience if steps are not taken to cover it up. This distress stems from the cultural significance of hair for female identity, societal expectations regarding appearance, and different standards applied to women. Women treated by the company — those with baldness or patchy hair loss rather than just thinning — were, on the basis of that condition, persons with a disability — concluded judges Raghavan and Poole.
And, as could already be expected, social networks went wild — some welcomed the ruling with thunderous applause, others with mockery and amazement. In this era when fierce ideological, political, and cultural battles over gender identities are being fought, it could happen that men with a problem of (partial) baldness will seek disability status. Why not!? Free public transportation, special parking spaces, disability pensions and all sorts of benefits, and the concept of gender has become infinitely stretchable.
