Page 3 | UK Government confirms it will block Scottish GRR

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 09:26

And of course, the Scottish Government fought in court for this interpretation, ie. a man requires a GRC before he can be considered a woman "for all purposes", not just for inclusion in positive measures for women on public boards but all other provision made for women: changing rooms, hospital wards, etc.

But simultaneously told the Scottish Parliament that a GRC was NOT needed to access women's services and trans people had always accessed services in line with their self-identified gender, and that they somehow also fully supported upholding single-sex services where trans people could be excluded.

These cannot all be true.

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 09:13

Lady Haldane said: "I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex." So sex throughout the Equality Act means legal/certificate sex.

She went on to say this does not cause a conflict with other laws, such as the Forensic Medical Services Act, where sex is taken to mean biological sex.

So whenever we see sex in the EA, replace it with legal sex. And for the gender reassignment exclusion paragraph, partially quoted above it means service providers can take action to keep separate or single sex services - but a single-sex service is single legal sex (ie. mixed sex) because Haldane says there is no concept or protected characteristic of biological sex in the Equality Act. It does not make any sense.

Nor does the protected characteristic of sexual orientation which now makes gay a mixed bio sex category, or pregnancy and maternity protections which no longer apply to any bio woman who has a GRC saying she's a man.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/01/2023 08:00

that NS and others are going round being oh so reasonable, or course women have the right to single sex services.

This gaslighting is what I find hardest to take about it. It's been a feature of the TRA campaign from the start. Deliberately dishonest. If you then ask these people for an example of when it's legitimate to use SSE to keep out MTF trans people, they never answer.

Plbrookes · 18/01/2023 07:37

ILikeDungs · 17/01/2023 20:17

"So pleased this is finally "mainstream" news and the public are becoming aware of it."

We turned the radio off when it came up for the Nth time. Never thought l would do that, since l have been screaming for the BBC or Guardian to cover it since 2016 but hearing misunderstandings and lies and damned lies all day is wearing.

But DH said "how can l be part of this conversation when nobody allows the suggestion that maybe just maybe "trans" is not a real THING?

I get what he is saying, totally. These are troubled young people, disturbed and disturbing older men, and confused homosexuals looking for a place to belong. And maybe, that's all?

Is it possible for older men to be confused or troubled or would that 'send the wrong mesage'?

Original poster

IwantToRetire · 17/01/2023 23:05

Well how it was explained to me is think of it in reverse.

What was it that was meant that there needed to be exemptions.

And all because as usual women's rights just didn't register as being important.

OP posts:

Signalbox · 17/01/2023 21:55

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

All purposes bar sports, peerages and gender-specific offences. Even the GRA doesn't mean ALL purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/19

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

Original poster

IwantToRetire · 17/01/2023 21:08

AS said by me and others Lady Haldane gave examples of when "for all purposes" would not apply, eg medical and she said something like many others. It isn't that hard to find all this in her ruling. ie she was quoting the EA. All she did is sit in court. Check how the EA had worked in the past. And just wrote a lot of words saying nothing has changed.

Interest that on C4 news Scottish Conservative giving examples of why 2 different types of GRC would be a problem in the UK, she gave the examples of schools, and the SNP representative did the whole we still have the SSE (that they never allow groups to put into practice).

So it was a shame that they then had a clip of Elaine Miller saying it was all about trans in women's spaces.

The wholesale misrepresentation of SSE in Scotland seems to be absolute. Maybe this is why so many Scottish Women's Groups appear to be acting as Stonewall cheer leaders. The believe TW are entitled to be in SS spaces. Wonder how they feel now that they have imposed this illegal act on women survivors, and that NS and others are going round being oh so reasonable, or course women have the right to single sex services.

OP posts:

StatisticallyChallenged · 17/01/2023 21:07

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 20:39

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

But later, the authors of the Equality Act decided to override the "for all purposes" phrasing of the GRA by creating single-sex exceptions applied on the basis of biological sex.

That part seems clear, if a bit daft.

But Lady Haldane, as I understand it, has said that "for all purposes" also applies to the Equality Act, and that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means "legal sex", not "biological sex".

So where do we draw the conclusion that the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act apply on the basis of biological sex, not legal sex?

I'm not trying to be difficult, by the way, I just don't understand.

The EA single sex services exemption specifically covers gender reassignment

A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 20:39

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

But later, the authors of the Equality Act decided to override the "for all purposes" phrasing of the GRA by creating single-sex exceptions applied on the basis of biological sex.

That part seems clear, if a bit daft.

But Lady Haldane, as I understand it, has said that "for all purposes" also applies to the Equality Act, and that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means "legal sex", not "biological sex".

So where do we draw the conclusion that the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act apply on the basis of biological sex, not legal sex?

I'm not trying to be difficult, by the way, I just don't understand.

ILikeDungs · 17/01/2023 20:17

"So pleased this is finally "mainstream" news and the public are becoming aware of it."

We turned the radio off when it came up for the Nth time. Never thought l would do that, since l have been screaming for the BBC or Guardian to cover it since 2016 but hearing misunderstandings and lies and damned lies all day is wearing.

But DH said "how can l be part of this conversation when nobody allows the suggestion that maybe just maybe "trans" is not a real THING?

I get what he is saying, totally. These are troubled young people, disturbed and disturbing older men, and confused homosexuals looking for a place to belong. And maybe, that's all?

rogdmum · 17/01/2023 19:41

Can I also add about the “most marginalised, vulnerable etc” overused phrase that I hate it because what a message to give to gender distressed young people! I DON’T want my DD thinking she’s the most marginalised etc in society. I have spent YEARS trying to give her positive messages that she is strong and can go off and do whatever she wants. WTF would I want her to perceive herself as marginalised because that’s the message society is giving to her.

it goes against everything we’ve been trying to teach her and is dangerous.

Waitwhat23 · 17/01/2023 19:26

Northern Ireland's government appear to have suggested targets for gender representation but I can't see if a bill has been passed.

Waitwhat23 · 17/01/2023 19:23

It also seems to come down to devolved matters and reserved matters. Legislation relating to equality matters is a reserved matter. The Scottish Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018 seems not, as far as I can see, to have an equivalent in either the Welsh or English parliament. If such a bill was introduced in another area of the UK and they chose to use a different interpretation of the definition of woman (I.e. biological woman which seems to have been dismissed by Haldane mostly because it is not stated specifically in earlier legislation), then a reserved piece of legislation would be applied differently in different parts of the UK.

There's also the issue, which isn't really addressed in the judgement, that sex means assigned gender 'for all purposes' until it's not. The McConnell case determined that someone who has changed their gender is still a mother or father according to their biological sex. Haldane states that the Forensic Medical Examiners Bill allows for female examiners who are biologically female because this meaning is made clear in the legislation, and is acceptable because it is later legislation than the 2004 and 2010 acts. It suggests to me that any future legislation can be specifically worded to mean biological sex.

GailBlancheViola · 17/01/2023 19:19

MissLawls · 17/01/2023 16:10

If I hear this most vulnerable group of people (meaning trans) one more time from those willing to sacrifice women and girls on the altar of male wants and wishes I won't be responsible for my actions.

I hear you @GailBlancheViola It's language they've been told to use by Stonewall. I've heard Starmer use it, Harman, many others. Two to three women a week are killed by men, usually their partners and, as I understand it, are most likely to be killed after they have left their abusive partner. So giving the lie to the chorus of, "Oh why doesn't she/didn't she leave him!" Not to mention that the first 12 months of someone's life is the riskiest and the time when they are most likely to be murdered, mostly by parents or close caregivers. Most abuse happens in the family. Much happens in the workplace. And some happens among those who are charged with protecting us, ie the police.

But let's talk about the most vulnerable, most marginalised, group... let's ignore all the women at risk. All the children. All the young men from knife crime. The truth is this so-called Most Marginalised Group ever is, in fact, the most privileged that ever walked the earth!

I know, I agree with you. I am also sick to the back teeth of hearing how only trans people know about being trans and should be the only ones to speak when in the next breath they claim to know all about being a woman (or a man) - no they fucking don't, stop demeaning and insulting women (and men) by claiming the first clue about what being one means when you weren't born the sex which has that knowledge and experience.

Labour Party - you caused this shit show with that utterly idiotic GRA 2004, you were warned where this would lead and yet you ignored it.

SinnerBoy · 17/01/2023 19:11

IwantToRetire · Today 18:58

And I agree with whoever it was said earlier on today that funders should be sued if they use funding to force women's groups to be trans inclusive, because not only do the EA use the example of why rape crisis support should be single sex, but that in the instance of funding it should be proportional.

I asked that question, perhaps others have, too. Are there any lawyers with a professional opinion? If it's a possibility, it would be really good, if the idea were to reach the wider world.

SinnerBoy · 17/01/2023 19:09

@MargaritaPie · Today 16:42

Your statement also stinks of transphobia by heavily implying that transpeople are somehow setting out to become sex offenders...

Here's an idea, why not try being honest? That was not what was said, rather, that trans w are statistically 5 times more likely to be sex offenders, in comparison to other men. This comes from government produced statistics.

GailBlancheViola · 17/01/2023 19:08

LlynTegid · 17/01/2023 17:58

Some of the arguments made in favour of changing the law could easily be covered in other ways. Death certificates by a clause allowing a declaration in your will to ask you be recorded as a woman or a man instead of what is on your birth certificate, for example.

No - neither a Birth Certificate nor a Death Certificate should ever be changed, it is a legal document and the fact that we have this ridiculous situation whereby a Birth Certificate can be changed to reflect a legal and absolute fiction is an scandal. No-one can change sex, no-one.

Original poster

IwantToRetire · 17/01/2023 18:58

The Haldane ruling basically said what the law was then and is now. For "all purposes" a GRC changes your "legal" sex so you can get a marriage certificate and a death certificate saying you are the opposite to the sex you are born. Or a passport.

So because it uses the wording "for all purposes" those drafting the legislation suddenly realised or somebody pointed out, that there are circumstances, health care, rape crisis support, when services need to be women only, ie biological sex only.

So instead of doing the obvious, ie rewording the gender reassignment bit with its sweeping statement "for all purposes" to a specific list, they treated women's sex based rights as lesser, and sogrudgingly allowed that they should be exemptions to the "all purposes". So now women have to argue when single sex is essential, ie a sex based right.

And too many, including Duffield seem to have taken on the Stonewall briefing on the EA that says trans women with a certificate are allowed in single sex services. They aren't.

This is while Nicola Sturgeon and others are saying what is the problem, women have SSE, there is no problem.

But if you remember the meeting in Scotland when NS was heckled for undermining women's rights, she didn't do a good politician response, I know you are concerned, but dont forget women still have SSE, she used it to make out the woman challenging her was some sort of trouble maker.

And I agree with whoever it was said earlier on today that funders should be sued if they use funding to force women's groups to be trans inclusive, because not only do the EA use the example of why rape crisis support should be single sex, but that in the instance of funding it should be proportional. ie if 90% of rape victims are women then 90% of funding should go to women's support services.

It just seems more and more obvious that the SNP have been using the trans issue as a political tool to not only distract from what they aren't doing, but also to invoke some sort of organised undermining to trans rights to such an extent that they need prioritising.

What isn't clear, and clearly from the meeting where NS was heckled, too many women seem to be only to happy to imply women fighting for sex based rights are out of date, trouble makers, transphobic and so on.

Wouldn't it be great if at the next Let Women Speak which is I think in Glasgow, women who have worked in refuges etc., and been silenced and got rid off, felt able to come and speak about what has been going on.

And if they are frightened because of past experiences, if TRAs can come masked up and annonymous, then so can they.

We need to find out and expose how the SNP, Greens, etc., have turned the whole purpose of SSE on its head, the damage they have done to survivors of male violence, but are now claiming it is important and supported by them.

OP posts:

LexMitior · 17/01/2023 18:51

I think we can say two things.

The Haldane ruling was flawed. It evaded the substance of the issue.

The other merciful thing for the rest of the UK is that it is, given the hierarchy of the court system, unlikely to survive as persuasive authority. If a case was put forward in England and Wales, then I think you would get a different outcome, and a different line of authority.

All of which doesn't matter very much because....

Westminster may just decide to amend the Equality Act to address its issue of legal sex and biological sex and then the Haldane ruling will be of no relevance whatsoever. Statute trumps all. Trans activists would have to start again.

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 18:46

I'm going to try to answer my own question here. I've just been reading the concluding parts of the Haldane judgement. She states, quite categorically:

"For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex. Such a conclusion does not offend against, or give rise to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that “sex”means biological sex."

Nowhere does she mention the Equality Act's single-sex exemptions. She does mention other legislation that specifies that a service can be for biological females only, such as the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) 32 (Scotland) Act 2021.

As far as I can see, the Haldane judgement means that "sex" as used in the Equality Act refers both to biological sex and opposite-sex people who have a GRC, effectively losing single-sex protections for women. Am I wrong?

Ofcourseshecan · 17/01/2023 18:45

as @MargaritaPie only ever answers selected questions, I would like to ask while you are here: Do you think it's acceptable that under self ID, men like David Carrick are allowed to be housed in a womens prison?…

Well done for trying, WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles. But as always, Margarita Pie blatantly ignored your questions in her ‘answers’.

IcakethereforeIam · 17/01/2023 18:31

Fairly even handed article in the Guardian

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/17/blocking-scotland-gender-recognition-bill-rishi-sunak

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 18:25

Please can we not go over again that the Single Sex Exemptions do allow you to exclude men AND men with a GRC that says "for all other purposes" they are female.

Actually, please can we? Because I don't think it's at all well understood. Certainly Rosie Duffield interviewed on R4 just now seemed to have a poor understanding of it.

I understand, obviously, that historically the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act have allowed service providers to exclude biological males from single sex spaces and services (changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc) even if they have a GRC. All well and good.

The Haldane ruling says, however, that males who hold a GRC are for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act, female, because the Equality Act does not specify that sex means "biological sex".

However, if I've understood it right, there are still circumstances in which a male holder of a GRC can be excluded from a single-sex space under the terms of the Equality Act. I can't for the life of me understand how this follows on from the ruling that the word "sex" refers to legal, not biological, sex. Under which bits of the Equality Act does a male holder of a GRC count as female, and under which bits does that same male holder count as male?

I'm sorry if you feel you have already explained this, but I am still mystified and confused, and would be grateful for a definitive explanation - as I think would others.

ArtfullyCrumpled · 17/01/2023 18:06

LlynTegid · 17/01/2023 17:58

Some of the arguments made in favour of changing the law could easily be covered in other ways. Death certificates by a clause allowing a declaration in your will to ask you be recorded as a woman or a man instead of what is on your birth certificate, for example.

Agree. The people interviewed in the last two days seem to only have the argument of "the admin is a nightmare" and I just heard on Radio4 the case for "when I get married I want to feel the most feminine ever".

LlynTegid · 17/01/2023 17:58

Some of the arguments made in favour of changing the law could easily be covered in other ways. Death certificates by a clause allowing a declaration in your will to ask you be recorded as a woman or a man instead of what is on your birth certificate, for example.