For Women Scotland lose case

Nah, if trans women were really women, organisations wouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate them like they've been doing. And policy makers and politicians wouldn't be rushing to include them in all kinds of legislation.

Precisely.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'.

That's what people like Stella Creasy believe, too. It's nonsense. They have a protected characteristic. If they are mistakenly perceived as women they can claim sex discrimination. If like the vast majority they don't pass, they may be experiencing discrimination due to their gender reassignment characteristic.

I want to see the worked example of the double discrimination. If I go to ACAS, say, I can see illustrations of what “disability discrimination” would look like in employment. Like this:

“Example
A business is looking to hire a personal assistant. In the job application form, there's a question asking if the applicant has any disabilities that will make doing the job difficult. As disability is a protected characteristic, this question is against the law”.

What would that look like in the case that a transgender person had been discriminated against twice because of both their sex and their gender reassignment? The closest I can get is if it was the case of a trans man- the initial discrimination was that they were discriminated against because they were trans, and then the second discrimination wasthat they were pregnant, maybe? And doesn’t that illustrate that yet again, we’re looking in the wrong direction for where the unfairness occurs, because we’re looking at males, when it’s potentially females who suffer.

This is very messy.

I think it's worth mentioning here that FWS had their costs pretty much covered until EN/STA intervention. That increased costs substantially & that's what is being asked for now. And the costs are needed before they can even get advice on whether to appeal.

So, we can all 'thank' the fully Scotgov supported (and mostly funded) EN/STA for the additional costs being asked for.

Agree, Prion. Most people, I think, are unclear as to what 'transwoman' means - I think most people think it means someone born female and living 'as a man'.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'.

I couldn’t understand the ruling as it was long and full of legal detail. But one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that we must fight for clear language, every time we debate this issue. We cannot continue to use a word that implies men are a kind of woman. Biological accuracy has to come before forced speech.

Lady Wise’s statement was confusing as she stated men who claim they are women were protected under the EA under sex as well as gender reassignment. It is wholly unclear what that meant, because obviously in legislation to assist women, sex does not apply for male people.

I hope there will be some clarification, but likely there won’t. And the only way to prevent that confusion is to use plain English, every single time.

Nah, if trans women were really women, organisations wouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate them like they've been doing. And policy makers and politicians wouldn't be rushing to include them in all kinds of legislation.

P.S. surgery is not required to be a trans woman. You just have to click your heels and say the magic words. That's queer theory for you.

Is this really what trans-women want? Concerning that it wasn't open to public debate. Interested to hear the views of TW if any reading.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'. I would have thought it was either or - either someone thinks said person is a woman or they think they are a transwoman. They surely can't be both at once.

Is this Schrodingers woman?

Anyway, we women just don't know how good we have it. We should definitely all just shut up (bear in mind the 'hate crime bill' now means we should be careful what we say, as 'sex based rights' has been described by an MP as 'hateful').

No problem PandorasMailbox

Can anyone post under an article they accessed with a sharetoken? I realized that I don't know that.

I was wondering about that. Good - I hope they see what people think and maybe do a follow up investigation into why this came about.

There must be an awful lot of comments on that Times article. There is a delay in comments appearing which usually means they have loads and that usually means people are angry

Define ‘marginalised group’ 🤔 because... 🤭 you know...

If you wish to increase the representation of a marginalised group, then increase the representation of that marginalised group. Don’t pretend that they are contained within another marginalised group.
I don’t know how the judge can claim that this is nothing to do with trans rights.

‘To increase representation in the board room’ so how many trans men and how many trans women is the target?

So on a board of, say 10 people - how many is that - of each (because that’s what it’s all bailout surely? Fairness? Although how someone’s trans status could have one iota of relevance if you are on the board of a small company that makes bricks god alone knows).

How do they define ‘trans’ because the stonewall law is very wide - so how do they know that we don’t already have whatever the magic % is? Or is this also to kill 2 birds with one stone (if boards have a policy to have x% ow women on the board).

Why is there a law specifically for this? Was there ever an actual law to push more women into the board room?

Is there a law to push more representation of those say, with disabilities or refugees or minority groups on boards?

Why specifically this group? Can anyone explain this?

If the Scottish legislation was about increasing trans representation, as the Times article suggests, why didn’t they (or maybe they couldn’t?) instead legislate to reserve some seats for trans people? Theoretically, they could have no trans representation on boards, just as there could be no women

the meaning of woman would be broadened. It would cease to be a “female of any age” and would include transgender women

That is an unusually unclear article for the Times. It does not make it clear that the ruling allows males to claim that they are women. Unless readers have followed this issue, many will understand 'transgender women' to mean females who identify as men.

Times is reporting it:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e9c5b740-8c16-11eb-8f69-0367b6f4fca7?shareToken=6ece0d66c48eb26e8d8ac59dd41fde00

Are you operating as a man or woman if you are a Dr with an ambiguous name and wear a kilt?

Excellent. You looking forward to your pay rise @BewaretheIckabog?

My name is usually associated with females but can be a man’s name.

Thanks to the normal assumptions of who will be paying the household bills two of my utility bills have been coming to Mr for the past 3 years.

Couldn’t be arsed to change them. Laziness now means I can declare myself as living as a man.