For Women Scotland lose case

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it.

RobinMoiraWhite Given this accordance of weight one assumes that we who know that sex is binary, immutable and matters should use Vera Bairds' descriptor of "real sex" as opposed to gender identity and legal sex (conferred by GRC) for clarity.

The Solicitor-General: We have not come across discrimination against any such people that has not been linked to a separation—however tentative, however temporary and however partial—of gender identity and real sex."

Skeleton argument BEN COOPER QC & ANYA PALMER
13 April 2020:
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

EHRC
(Karon Monghan QC for EHRC said they agreed with all of the legal points raised by claiments' legal team today)
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

Index on Censorship
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-ioc-skeleton-final.pdf

thread with commentary of hearing:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4228233-Maya-Forstaters-appeal-skeleton

thread with discussion of Robin White and Molly Mulready Independent article, 'Maya Forstater is entitled to her views, but anti-transgender beliefs don’t belong in the workplace'
OP Trixie78 wrote,
"I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies in this article. It's making my blood boil."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/maya-forstater-rowling-trans-b1838137.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it.

Vera Baird (Solicitor General) also referred to, "real sex" as distinct to 'gender identity" in the session quoted:

Public Bill Committee
Thursday 11 June 2009
Equality Bill

(extract)
The Solicitor-General: I will give way, although I have an “angels on the head of a pin” sense about this debate.

Lynne Featherstone: The debate may hinge on a pin head but it is vitally important to a particular community. I am seeking reassurance from the Minister—although I know she feels she has probably already given it. I have constituents who are indeterminate and would not necessarily be identified as gender reassigned or as one sex or the other. They are somewhere in between and unidentifiable physically. I want to make sure that those people are protected. They may not even be on a journey; they may just be indeterminate in their gender identity, so there is no reassignment at all. Would that be covered?

The Solicitor-General: We have not found evidence of discrimination against people who one might call third sex. We have not found discrimination against people like that at all. What causes discrimination is characteristics that other people can see. A state of indecision within oneself or a tentative reflection on where one wants to be on the spectrum will not light itself up so that somebody can discriminate against the person who is thinking or feeling that way.
Column number: 171

Lynne Featherstone: I would argue against that point because there are people who are indeterminate or third gender of whom it cannot be said which sex they are and they face discrimination simply because they do not look quite as expected in either gender.

The Solicitor-General: We have not come across discrimination against any such people that has not been linked to a separation—however tentative, however temporary and however partial—of gender identity and real sex." (continues)

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s05.htm

I was quoting from a section/comment which references the GRA & the requirements to be met to obtain a GRC.

Here's the fuller section:

"I want to reassure the Committee that we are not altering the requirements of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This was the cause of some confusion at Second Reading for the right reverend Prelate. The Act provides people with legal recognition of their acquired gender. Part of the requirement to obtain a gender recognition certificate is that an individual will have to provide to the gender recognition panel evidence of a secure diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

So according to that comment, the intent when debating the gender reassignment characteristic as part of the EA2010 was not to alter the requirements of the GRA i.e. the GRA was intended to cover those who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Again, is the claim now that non-binary/gender fluid/cross dressers meet that requirement?

In Lynne Featherstone's blog at the time she complains that Baird, the then Solictor General, doesn't "get" gender (my bold)

Which of course is unsurprising given that the Act of 2004 which legislated its recognition also failed to define it adequately.

Policy makers have thus been chasing their tails ever since.

Link:

lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/06/13/following-equality-bill-through/

In Lynne Featherstone's blog at the time she complains that Baird, the then Solictor General, doesn't "get" gender (my bold):

The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their ‘characteristic’ is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that ‘reassignment’ wasn’t medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender – and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they ‘change’ gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) – but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don’t present as male or female identifiably.

It strikes me that Vera Baird, somewhat naively, imagined that only people with medical gender dysphoria would seek the protections of the act, or would be granted them.

She is clearly referring to birth sex - only two. Male/Female - immutable, unchangeable from conception to death - and verifiable of sex at conception even when a body is dug up and examined 1000 years later, unless you are referring to intersex conditions, where you would also be wrong as they are medical conditions, not a separate sex.

Wading through some of these parliamentary discussions shows how effective Press For Change's insistence that sex, gender and gender identity be conflated.

When the time comes for a thorough examination of lobby groups undue influence on government this will no doubt be a significant chapter.

"Part of the requirement to obtain a gender recognition certificate is that an individual will have to provide to the gender recognition panel evidence of a secure diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

Are non-binary, gender fluid or cross dressing individuals now claiming they also suffer from gender dysphoria? Or is the claim now that gender dysphoria isn't a requirement for individuals to be covered by the GRA? Cos that's quite a departure from the intent of the bill, is it not?

Nope, no inconsistency. Note that the Baroness refers to 'another' gender, not, 'the other gender'

In context - she states: who is somebody who has been assigned one gender at birth, but believes that they are of another gender.

She is clearly referring to birth sex - only two. Male/Female - immutable, unchangeable from conception to death - and verifiable of sex at conception even when a body is dug up and examined 1000 years later, unless you are referring to intersex conditions, where you would also be wrong as they are medical conditions, not a separate sex.

[quote ANewCreation]Eventually found the committee stage that is relied on so heavily in the judgement, @OldCrone @R0wantrees

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s03.htm

Thursday 11June 2009
Committee stage 6th sitting

Tiny little continue button at the bottom to scroll through the session to find the columns the judgement refers to ie 168-176.

Lots to unpack here including Lynne "Don't vote for us" Featherstone who was hoping to change the protected characteristic from Gender Reassignment to Gender Identity 😳 and a very curious bit of discussion about whether Dame Edna Everage would be covered by the legislation.

I think it is helpful to set this against Baroness Thornton bringing the bill to the Lords speaking 6 months later in January 2010, explaining who the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (clause 7) was, by then, designed to protect.

There is a definite switch between the positions expressed at committee stage and later in the Lords and it would, I believe, have been a very useful Hansard-based counter argument in the gender fluid case where a male using a male name presented 'as a woman' a couple of days a week. Also relevant to EI in 'boy mode' and 'girl mode'.

"The point I was making is that that is the range of things that could happen for a transsexual person.

However, Clause 7 does not cover transvestites or others who choose temporarily to adopt the appearance of the opposite gender.

While we do not condone anyone being treated badly because of the way in which they present themselves, it would not be appropriate to provide people who present themselves temporarily as of a gender other than their birth gender with the same protection against discrimination that is available to a person with gender dysphoria, who is somebody who has been assigned one gender at birth, but believes that they are of another gender. That is the point—it is what happens to that person that the Bill attempts to address."

View the Hansard contribution by Baroness Thornton on Monday 11 January 2010

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2010-01-11/debates/10011139000077/EqualityBill?highlight=transvestites#contribution-10011149000003[/quote]
Nope, no inconsistency. Note that the Baroness refers to 'another' gender, not, 'the other gender'.

Many thanks ANewCreation, I am always cautious when short quotes are used without context provided.

While we do not condone anyone being treated badly because of the way in which they present themselves, it would not be appropriate to provide people who present themselves temporarily as of a gender other than their birth gender with the same protection against discrimination that is available to a person with gender dysphoria, who is somebody who has been assigned one gender at birth, but believes that they are of another gender. That is the point—it is what happens to that person that the Bill attempts to address."

This appears at first glance somewhat at odds with the argument that White and Morton were seeking to make.

Thank you @ANewCreation. I searched Hansard for the Equality Bill debates and found nothing with the right column numbers, and also searched for some of the phrases in the quoted extracts and found nothing. I'll read this later.

Eventually found the committee stage that is relied on so heavily in the judgement, @OldCrone @R0wantrees

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s03.htm

Thursday 11June 2009
Committee stage 6th sitting

Tiny little continue button at the bottom to scroll through the session to find the columns the judgement refers to ie 168-176.

Lots to unpack here including Lynne "Don't vote for us" Featherstone who was hoping to change the protected characteristic from Gender Reassignment to Gender Identity 😳 and a very curious bit of discussion about whether Dame Edna Everage would be covered by the legislation.

I think it is helpful to set this against Baroness Thornton bringing the bill to the Lords speaking 6 months later in January 2010, explaining who the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (clause 7) was, by then, designed to protect.

There is a definite switch between the positions expressed at committee stage and later in the Lords and it would, I believe, have been a very useful Hansard-based counter argument in the gender fluid case where a male using a male name presented 'as a woman' a couple of days a week. Also relevant to EI in 'boy mode' and 'girl mode'.

"The point I was making is that that is the range of things that could happen for a transsexual person.

However, Clause 7 does not cover transvestites or others who choose temporarily to adopt the appearance of the opposite gender.

While we do not condone anyone being treated badly because of the way in which they present themselves, it would not be appropriate to provide people who present themselves temporarily as of a gender other than their birth gender with the same protection against discrimination that is available to a person with gender dysphoria, who is somebody who has been assigned one gender at birth, but believes that they are of another gender. That is the point—it is what happens to that person that the Bill attempts to address."

View the Hansard contribution by Baroness Thornton on Monday 11 January 2010

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2010-01-11/debates/10011139000077/EqualityBill?highlight=transvestites#contribution-10011149000003

[quote Alicethroughtheblackmirror]Yes, Catherina that is my understanding - the number of female examiners has increased but there needs to be more. I think most of the women involved in the campaign understood this (although, offensively, Sandy Brindley of RCS suggested they did not) but knew that accurate language was important going forward. As this groups of survivors so movingly wrote, they knew it wasn't a guarantee, but it gave them the right to ask. It's also true that a new university course designed for FME was not using schedule 9 and that campaigners hoped this might encourage them to do so. forwomen.scot/10/12/2020/dear-msps-from-survivors/#more-3058[/quote]
That is an excellent letter, it's appalling that it had to be written.

I just went through this tonight with my young late 20s niece, explaining how some Scottish politicians consider it bigoted to want a female examiner and not a male with an identity.

She was repelled by the fact that women's boundaries are so unacceptable by men. She studied oral history of the sterilising of indigenous women in Peru instigated by a male (Japan born) for her masters degree.

www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-34855804

Yes, Catherina that is my understanding - the number of female examiners has increased but there needs to be more. I think most of the women involved in the campaign understood this (although, offensively, Sandy Brindley of RCS suggested they did not) but knew that accurate language was important going forward. As this groups of survivors so movingly wrote, they knew it wasn't a guarantee, but it gave them the right to ask. It's also true that a new university course designed for FME was not using schedule 9 and that campaigners hoped this might encourage them to do so. forwomen.scot/10/12/2020/dear-msps-from-survivors/#more-3058

Thank you for the advert.

If the killer content is that words don't mean what anyone thinks they mean then there is already tons of that blah all over the place. 30 quid for old news is steep.

Here's a link to the full judgment in the case where these were mentioned.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8d559d3bf7f7f5c134ad3/Ms_R_Taylor_v_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Limited_-1304471.2018-_Reasons.pdf

The Hansard extracts are mentioned in paragraphs 170-178, but there is no date reference to help us find them.

I think Robin's interpretation of EqA 2010 is wrong. Spurious, even.

But what difference would it make for feminists even if it was correct? Not much.

We're interested in what is good for women. Either our interpretation is correct and we campaign for EqA as is to be properly enforced or Robin's interpretation is correct and we campaign for it to be changed so that is actually protective of women.

Let's not go up a blind alley of semantics.

We just want what is best for women.

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it.

@RobinMoiraWhite could you please provide a more specific link to when Vera Baird made the comments quoted in Equality Act debates in Westminster please.

I would like to look at context.