SNP accused of flouting court ruling to define biological men as women

Yes it would. It would be the aim of providing dignity safety and comfort to women while minimising distress and alarm. It would also enable women who by faith, religion or trauma cannot access mixed sex spaces to participate fully in society.

"Discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

As trans women have had access to women's spaces for years, suddenly excluding them would not be a legitimate aim.

Do they?? Which ones? Im sure you’ve got a list with proof of this. You wouldn’t just be making it up would you?

And it's interesting that a majority of the organisations (aka expert women's and LGBT groups) supported the change. Almost as if the people who know about this stuff support it...

So, for example, someone with a GRC can still be excluded when it comes to single sex spaces, for a proportionate reason.
So it seems perfectly reasonable to exclude a male with a GRC when the legitimate aim is to increase female representation in a line of work.

That can't be correct

Indeed if SNP supporters are going to throw around sniping about democracy nothing is more undemocratic than the Greens holding cabinet posts and dictating policy having won 1.2% of the constituency vote.

Or any comment on how support for GRA reform has decreased with each subsequent consultation? The first consultation stood at 60% support.

It doesn't now.

How interesting that you've used an article from 02 September 2021.

Any comment on the analysis of the short survey for the calls for views from this year? The one that shows 59% of respondents being against GRA reform? * *

yourviews.parliament.scot/ehrcj/4e11ba8a/

There's some actually useful analysis here about the calls for evidence sessions here too -
murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/02/who-is-giving-evidence-to-the-committee-on-gender-recognition-reform/

It's called PR and it's been around for decades in Scotland now.

"That report, which was published today, said that of the 215 organisations that submitted responses “a small majority” broadly supported changing to a system of self-declaration."

And quite right too.

www.holyrood.com/news/view,gender-reform-bill-to-progress-after-review-of-consultation-is-unveiled

You're correct. 😀

So? She is a list MSP, they are equal in stature and pay to constituency MSPs.

@Rainbowshit ah but remember, this is not a democracy, its a SNP-ocracy....

I don't know why the unionist parties still persist with their pig-headedness. There are three of them all chasing about 50% vote share. It's as if they are actually striving for insignificance.

This is hilarious. Except between them the unionist parties got over 50% of the vote. I know you nats would like a one party state dictatorship but the rest of us value democracy.

Do you have a problem with the idea that anyone should support the Union?

At the last Holyrood elections the SNP got 47% of the votes cast in the constituency and 40% in the list. The Greens got 1.2 % and 8 % respectively. The majority of voters who voted do not support separatism.

Oh, quite possibly.

Just raking in the depths of my memory here, but prior to 2019 I think ScotCon had something like 37 MSPs. Ok, nothing remarkable about that. Until you realise that 24 of them were list representatives.

This is the most amazing thing about Labour's underhanded attempt to gerrymander Holyrood into an unending Hegemony. Not only has it completely bitten them on the arse and led to a majority SNP government that was supposed to be practically an impossibility, but de Hondt actually masks just how pathetic Labour and Conservative performance is in Scotland. If we had Westminster FPTP, then something like 100 of the 130 MSP's would be directly elected SNP MSP's.

I don't know why the unionist parties still persist with their pig-headedness. There are three of them all chasing about 50% vote share. It's as if they are actually striving for insignificance.

Am I right in thinking that Murdo only got his list seat because someone else resigned and he walked into it unopposed?

Wait till you find out just how many Tory and Labour MSP's have never won any sort of election either. You'll shit a brick.

Notables include Murdo Fraser. At the last count it was 7, or is it now 8, straight election defeats on the trot, yet somehow he's been a sitting MSP for 20 years.

Bat shit and liars to boot - www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-cannot-back-up-26961353

Lorna Slater who didn't even win her own constituency. Not even close at 13.1% of the votes.

Sturgeon & the SNP are in hock to the equally bat shit mad Greens to have a majority in Holyrood so we women up here are up really against it.

The second link in the OP discusses that point. The Scottish Government are trying to state that this is the case but that is not the judgement of the Court -

'The Court’s judgment was clear that the Equality Act set out sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics, where:

Sex refers to women or men where ‘woman’ means a female of any age and ‘man’ a male of any age.
Gender reassignment refers to transsexual persons who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or who have undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. The reassignment is the common factor of the protected characteristic, not the person’s sex and covers those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as those without.
The Court ruled that the definition of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act is the only definition which the Scottish Parliament could have legislated for in passing the 2018 Act, and said “Provisions in favour of women, in this context, by definition exclude those who are biologically male” and “By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman, the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics” which is not permitted.'

I thought anyone who held a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) was treated "in law" as if they were their acquired gender/sex? So a trans-woman with a GRC would be counted as a woman in statistics. Is that not the case?

It’s got to come down to money

it’s the only explanation for such bloody mindedness verging on political suicide

They've ignored the results of the two consultations and in particular, the recent call for views which shows that the majority of respondents are against the proposed gender act reforms. The call for evidence sessions have been ridiculously unbalanced and actively hostile to those who express concerns.

This latest crap doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They're pushing it through hell or high water and seem perfectly happy to break the law in order to do so.