For Women Scotland lose case

[quote Scepticaltank]Robin will be sharing the wisdom

www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/[/quote]
Thank you for the advert.

Thanks for the link to the Julia Long article. I somehow missed that last year. I agree with all of that. The language around this is a total mess.

I found not colluding with obfuscatory language easier than anticipated.

Thanks for the link to the Julia Long article. I somehow missed that last year. I agree with all of that. The language around this is a total mess. I often find that I spend ages trying to write a post to avoid using any pronouns (to comply with the special rules as I don't want to use wrong-sex pronouns). I do use the terms transwoman and transsexual because there don't seem to be concise alternatives to convey the same meaning which comply with the special rules.

There was a term that was used on here a lot a few years ago but which was banned when the special rules were brought in. It would be much easier if we could use this term.

Quoting from the MN special rules:

That said, it’s clear that most trans people find the use of pronouns or names that they or others have consciously rejected, to be hurtful and would therefore struggle to engage in a discussion with those who insist on using them. The same is true of the expression ‘Trans-Identified Male’ or ‘TIM’.

I sometimes use 'man who identifies as a woman' as an alternative, but 'transwoman' or 'transsexual' are much quicker to type.

From Equality and Human Rights Commission
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

“a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male”

But doesn't it exclude FtM trans people on the grounds of being transsexual?

They may be transsexuals but unless they have a GRC they are legally female. I think it means MTF transsexuals and they just don't want to say they are male.

As written, it excludes anyone who is not a woman and/or is transsexual.

A female of any age would not be excluded should they wish to access female single sex excepted space/ services as they can simply decline to self identify as 'transsexual'.
Many women have mastectomies, hysterectomies and/or have facial hair.

I agree about the clumsy drafting, because it seems clear that it's there to exclude the same group as people as in the other clause which mentions male to female transsexuals.

As written, it excludes anyone who is not a woman and/or is transsexual.

Remove the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) allowing some jobs to require applicants must be cisgender and replace it with a GOR allowing posts delivering trans-specific services to require applicants must be transgender

What clearer expression of having one's cake and eating it.

For the princely sum of £29.99 we can all find out.

Preordering my copy as we speak!

I hope FWS and their legal team read this thread.

Vera Baird did a lot of good for female victims of crime and domestic violence sufferers who snapped and killed their abusers, but she's wrong on this.

The last 3 or 4 minutes of that video, amidst a few insults aimed, at women Robin explains that sex in the equality act is always misread. Two blokes nodding along saying that's very interesting.

Remove the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) allowing some jobs to require applicants must be cisgender and replace it with a GOR allowing posts delivering trans-specific services to require applicants must be transgender

Surprise, surprise, I daren't say anymore, however, I think that speaks volumes.

There's a free podcast here:

R. White (assisted by James Morton) represented a former Jaguar-Landrover male employee (Taylor) who wished to wear stereotypical feminine clothes to work and was bullied by co-workers.

White explains that a key part of the Jaguar Landrover case rested on comment by Vera Baird about the nature of 'gender reassignment' from Hansard. (see screenshot)
It would be useful to know the context/date of this statement.

Thus claiming coverage for an occasional cross dressing engineer as 'gender fluid/non binary' to be included in protected characteristic 'gender reassignment'

Baird is a former Solicitor General now Victims' Commissioner.
Wiki
A Labour Party Member of Parliament for Redcar from 2001 to 2010, Baird was a government minister from 2006 to 2010 and the Solicitor General for England and Wales from 2007 to 2010. She served as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria Police from November 2012 to June 2019.

I am not a lawyer but remain shocked that well educated professionals would nod along with such nonsensical sentences as Baird's

Not really relevant to this thread but...

I've noted that towards then end of this thread there are arguments that words / phrases don't actually mean what they commonly mean. And that people (usually women) are just being a bit silly, and because they are not legal experts can't possible understand what is really meant.

This struck me as a couple of other threads recently (the Stonewall / ILGA/ age of consent, and the Greens removing sex from birth certificates) are very very similar.

The common thread being that women read something that is written, that has the potential of being detrimental to women or children, and speak out about this. Upon speaking out they are bombarded by (usually men) telling them they are taking it out of context, the words don't mean what they say, of course they don't mean that...

I just find this interesting.

For the princely sum of £29.99 we can all find out.

I think I'll give it a miss, thanks.

Gaslighting comments from White on this thread illustrate perfectly why women have to be vigilant and fight this nonsense. The smallest opening and they are arguing that up is down and left is right. The dishonesty, lack of empathy and sneering prove, once again, that those pushing this agenda have no interest in women or women's rights and don't care who gets hurt. Frankly, Robin makes me even more determined to support those fighting this.

Robin will be sharing the wisdom

www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/

Here's Scottish Trans Alliance's written submission to the 2016 WESC (they also called for the removal of the SSEs):

"The Equality Act 2010 should be amended to:...

Remove the exception that allows single sex services to discriminate against trans people

Remove the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) allowing some jobs to require applicants must be cisgender and replace it with a GOR allowing posts delivering trans-specific services to require applicants must be transgender

Link to submission here

Further details provided in the evidence session Link here

Exemptions in respect of trans people
Separate-sex and single-sex services
110.The Equality Act 2010 allows for the provision of separate-sex113 and single-sex services114 where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (a form of words intended to require the application of an objective standard of justification). The Act also effectively permits service providers not to allow a trans person to access separate-sex or single-sex services—on a case-by-case basis, where exclusion is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.115

...the Scottish Transgender Alliance thought the provision:

allows wide scope for service providers .... The provision can result in exclusion of vulnerable trans people from vital services such as homeless accommodation, emergency sexual health services and psychological support services. We recommend this single sex services exception be removed

116.Mr Morton of the Alliance elaborated as follows:

The exception, as currently drawn, effectively has no limit...

117.He added that if other service-users felt uncomfortable sharing a service with a trans woman you would not turn [the trans woman] away... There might be some situations and very limited situations where you might have to treat someone differently, but they should not be treated worse.

So, exceptions are acceptable as long as it's to the benefit of trans people (where it's recognised that trans people benefit from having support from other trans people) but females needing support from other female people is discriminatory to trans people.

And STA were calling for the removal of single sex exceptions because "The exception, as currently drawn, effectively has no limit" and allowed "some situations and very limited situations where you might have to treat someone differently"**

But here, we have Robin telling us that even STA/James Morton was wrong back in 2016, along with Karen Monaghan in 2021. And Robin has uniquely determined that all that effort in 2016 was a mistake cos now Robin thinks the exceptions don't actually do what Karen Monaghan (who co-wrote the EA2010) says it does, along with the many trans people & LGBT orgs were falling over themselves to stress how harmful those exceptions were to trans people.

I think FWS lawyers will be fine and can handle the case ok without the benefit of Robin's wisdom. Not that Robin has any intention of sharing that wisdom of course. Which is entirely the point I'm guessing.

Sorry, no. The wording doesn’t lead to that conclusion. Happy to argue it in court some time. It refers to someone one who is ‘a woman and not a transsexual person’. The comparator would be a woman who IS a transsexual person.’ Would you suggest that a trans man - who is a biological female - would be acceptable? That is what this guidance excludes - a man who is a transsexual person.

The contortions are laughable. So much effort was expended trying to eliminate the occupational requirement in the 2016 review and yet all along they were all mistaken as it meant the opposite of what it said, but no-one noticed.

130. Mridul Wadhwa told us that the provision was: discriminatory to transsexual people especially trans women. I genuinely believe that there is no space for it in the gender-based violence sector and that it has no place in violence against women work. I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago. I have worked in the violence against women sector since 2005 and have never known for it to be used. I am disappointed to think that someone has the right to refuse work to me and others like me in my sector just because they think that I might not be a woman.

Why didn't Clare McCann simply say it's ok, it doesn't mean transwomen, it means transmen at the time?
Page 31.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

I suppose its an angle that might sell a few copies of a book to people who wish to further obfuscate and confuse.

robin, do you think it doesn't need to exclude transwomen because the women won't know they're trans? What if they do?

Do you think they should be forced to accept it?

Its rather circular isnt it?

2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person

Oh dear Lord.
It's as bad as 'a woman is someone who feels like a woman'.

There's a term for that - explaining to the person who did the work & is the expert how they're wrong - but I think if I referenced it here, no doubt I'd get deleted & maybe banned. Such is the precarious nature of being a woman, speaking, and having dangerous innocuous opinions.

Cor. People are still playing pigeon chess with our visitor?

I salute your patience and must say it has resulted in some excellent and very informative posts.