Scottish census decision

Placemarking

I missed the end so not sure how that was left. Hopefully someone else will have the info on that.

When are we expecting the judgement?

FPFW did rally after lunch for the brief time he had to finish.

Just got to keep the 🤞 and hope for a good outcome.

Some of the arguments were ridiculous so I'm hoping that's picked up - and I dearly wish someone would organise some factual & compassionate training of the judges & advocates on DSD's. 'Intersex' was mentioned & misunderstood/mis-used [in the 1st round, and again today] (even more ill-informed than the 1st time) they need training to stop the nonsense that's being spouted (at the behest of trans activists I need to add - they've sewn the seeds of confusion here).

I'm gobsmacked that they all apparently nodded in agreement on the 'intersex = either no sex or characteristics of both sexes' nonsense. It's pretty bad that they're all so misinformed & ignorant of what they're all using in a way to either clarify or confuse arguments being made.

I shouldn't despair yet. I thought the Harry Miller case against the College of Policing would fail watching the live stream. His lawyer semed useless to me and yet he won. They go through all the written evidence with a fine tooth comb which is why it generally takes so long to reach a judgement.

One important consideration in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is that even though a decision from that court would come too late for the Scottish Census, if the case stops at the Inner Court of Session with a confirmation that sex includes gender identity, then that's established case law in Scotland and to challenge that in the future would probably require taking a case through the High Court and Appeal Court levels to get to the Supreme Court.

Having got this far it would be worth pushing to the end, so long as there is confidence that the Supreme Court would view sex as meaning material reality rather than someone's self-perceived identity.

Tensionwheels - i don't know if that was the case here, but sometimes all the arguments have actually been put in writing, and the oral stuff is just on certain points.
Fingers crossed!

I hope it can be appealed if they lose. Though time must be running short. But idk if they would get permission to appeal?

The other thing is that the supreme court is (I think?) above England& Wales and Scotland. At the mo, the situation in England/Wales is that the high court looked at the census act and agreed sex meant legal sex (ie birth cert or grc). Scottish Court has looked at the same and said sex can include self id sex, or 'lived sex' or whatever. If that's tested at supreme court and Scottish government win, I presume it will uproot the high court's decision for E&W too.

But whatever, at least we would know.

I agree with those saying the gra made it possible to claim 'sex' means something other than your actual sex. I don't think that inevitably meant a Court would find that sex therefore means 'whatever sex a person says they are that day'. It turns out there is less common sense in the judiciary I than i knew.

And I should add, I got kicked out before it finished. I also couldn't hear the judges when they were intervening so I've no idea what was said at those points.

I don't have the legal background or full picture from the whole session. I could have missed a killer point made. Here's hoping 🤞 😬

I think it's highly unlikely. The letters are being sent out from 28th feb, time isn't on their side - unless they do what they did on the ONS case & carry on til they get it over turned at the Supreme Court as they have up until the date of the actual census (whenever that is).

As much as I'm very pessimistic, we'll not yet know 'til they make the decision so again IANAL so might not have picked up when/where key arguments have been made & accepted.

It's definitely squeaky bum time 😬

If FPFW lose can this be appealed to the Supreme Court?

The point was made that sex isn't immutable because it was accepted that sex can be changed via a GRC.

Stupid, unworkable vanity project law.

"They would need to argue male and female were also wishy-washy concepts"

They did that, with bells on.

Their stance is effectively sex has always included gender ID within its definition, and if it didn't, then it does now as things have moved on, and if you think they haven't, where have you been? This is all settled, can't possibly think why you think otherwise.

I'm paraphrasing massively but that's the gist of some of their arguments.

One of the points made I think initially in the 1st round but it was mentioned again today - when Scotgov declined to amend the census act to specify sex to include gender identity, because the minister said at the time they didn't want to conflate sex with gender/gender ID, apparently that was because sex was already (settled) as conflating sex & gender & includes gender identity within the definition of sex.

And I hate to point this out, as I know it's been a means to push back on self ID, but the acceptance of legal sex as the settled agreed remit of the notion of sex, is ultimately what was used to undermine arguments that sex, for the sex Q in the census, was always and should continue to be considered biological sex. Because the concession was already made that legal sex was what they census Q was asking all along. Which since the GRA 2004 act includes male people who obtain the legal fiction that they have 'acquired' a sex different from that on their original birth certificate.

The point was made that sex isn't immutable because it was accepted that sex can be changed via a GRC.

Is there any live tweeting? I had a squizz at twitter and couldn't see anything.

That's the main issue, as the EHRC outlined. It's very woolly.

It used to be a highly medical process and so the reassignment was physical surgery etc.

At the same time that's basically sterilisation plus life long medical care and a huge deal.

To be fair I find it difficult to get my head round what gender reassignment actually means vs gender identity and how it applies in practice.

If gender reassignment essentially means transgender then is that not the same as identifying as transgender.

I think helpful posters have tried to explain in the past, I still don't get it.

I worry that if the Scottish government win this (especially if it's cos the judge says sex in law is a wishy-washy concept that can't be pinned down) then they will decide to appeal the ruling on representation on public boards, which said sex in law must be biological sex or that on a grc.

I am really hoping these legal cases piece together a picture of what the law means by 'sex' that's straight forward, basically biological sex, and not to be confused with gender identity or gender reassignment.

There's some straight up bullshit being spouted now.

Amazing what revisionism can do.

😡

Oh God, its no way to decide the law though is it.

Thanks for your reports.

There's some seriously dodgy arguments been made (intersex - being born with no sex, or characteristics of both sexes - seriously? 😒) but there is some coherent ones getting made now.

I don't see this going FPFW way.

If it's any consolation, Scotgov QC now sounding as incoherent as keeps conflating sex & gender in what he's trying to argue.

Good luck to the judges trying to unravel what actual point anyone has actually made cos sex & gender keeps getting muddled, accidentally & deliberately, depending on the point being made.

😬

He steadied himself for the short conclusion after lunch & made specific points. Sounded better. Now Scotgov up - not overly impressed with his arguments either!

It'll be the technical arguments that'll swing it either way, so it's maybe not as bad as the morning session might have indicated. But it's a fraught & complicated subject & as IANAL I could be way off the mark on my impressions.

Oh dear. It must be really hard picking it up. From following lots of these cases it seems they always suffer from muddling concepts. Judges muddle and blur things. Usually the opponents try and blur & fudge together things or over complicate things. So it's not good if our 'side' is not setting things out clear & precise either.