What now in Scotland?

single-sex spaces are a requirement, not an option,

Totally agree

Plus some clearer guidance on when a GRC owner can be excluded from single sex spaces.

This is a serious issue (among all the other serious issues!). There is the constant claim that anything gender will not affect women because of the ability to exclude specified in the EA. The problem is that it is a permission, not a requirement. If providers choose not to exercise this permission, the gender act reformers' do not see it as their problem.

It's not a new problem. The right to exclude has been there all along, but organisations are either captured by Stonelaw propaganda, or are afraid of repercussions by people far more aggressive than even excluded women tend to be.

Not only does the EA need to be updated to make it clear that sex refers to biology, and not gender-woo or legal fiction, but it also needs to be updated to make it clear that single-sex spaces are a requirement, not an option, when any of the female users prefer them.

I agree @IwantToRetire it's almost as if they were doing our job for us by fighting stonewall law🤣

Sorry if this seems like repitition as I have said it on other threads, but it seems like NS and TRAs are going all out to say the SSE of the UK wide EA are not in any way changed by the new Scottish GRR.

Here is the latest example:

There is a specific exception to the default rule that trans women should be treated as women in the Equality Act, to do with “safe spaces” – organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland, for example, can potentially justify not providing their services to trans women; www.scottishlegal.com/articles/gwyneth-king-damaging-delay-to-gender-recognition-reform-in-scotland

Funny isn't it that they are now so ready to quote this entitlement to single sex spaces, when they have put so much effort into denying it or corrupting it by saying those with a GRC are included - despite it being name as an exemption.

Just on a technical or do I mean legal point.

Can you have a Judicial Review of a decision voted on by (UK) MPs in the House of Commons?

ie does that mean that what the Commons is meant to stand for, a democratic vote (ha ha) is of less importance than a legal judgement.

I have a fuzzy memory of this being attempted to be done when Johnson prorogued Parliament.

I saw Lord Hope being interviewed about this and it would be a monumental waste of time and money to challenge it - but that won't stop the SNP because it provides a huge distraction and loads of drama.

I did a bit of research and the next general election can be held no later than May 2025 but the belief is that it will be held in May 2024. I wonder if Nicola hopes this will rumble on just long enough to maintain the 'how very dare they' anger that will bolster support for independence. Or will the Tories sit back and watch the Scottish Government tie themselves in knots and bankrupt themselves, and hold out till May 2025?

Either way it's going to be hugely painful for all those Scottish citizens who feel ignored and bulldozed on this issue. The only shred of hope I cling to, is that there are organisations like For Women Scotland and Murray Blackburn Mackenzie holding the SG accountable every step of the way.

From the article Mr Bonnington, Ms Sturgeon's former law tutor, said that if the SNP Government's challenge is based on an alleged 'attack on the devolution settlement' then it 'is doomed to fail'.He added: 'It is worrying that SNP MSPs and MPs are so ignorant of the legislation which applies to this matter that they have wasted everyone's time in the emergency debate in the Commons by making complete fools of themselves by concentrating on an irrelevant point.'In short, they appear to struggle to understand the function of the Scottish parliament.'

@GrrrrAReform Battle over gender reform bill veto would be a 'mistake', experts say www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11651561/Legal-battle-veto-doomed-Scottish-gender-reform-bill-mistake-legal-experts-say.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton this article should help answer most of your questions

I think the SG will find it hard to even come up with a compromise bill now the section 35 has put all of the concerns in writing and out in public. What might have been accepted before feels less likely now.

And the section 35 reasons explicitly and individually calls out all of the big changes that the GRR introduces

• reduced waiting period

It will be really hard to get any of those agreed now

What's the timescale for all of this? When is the next General Election? Will the SNP have to set up a Crowdfunder or will they use our taxes to pay for this?

On an another aspect. Why aren't news channels publicising the fact that a 16 year old will be able to get a GRC on their 16th birthday - even Dear Kier has voiced objections to the lowering of the age part of the Bill. Labour MSP Jackie Baillie sought to get an amendment that meant the 6 month waiting/reflection period should start at 16 NOT 6 months earlier at age 15 and a half. 15 and a half?!! When most kids haven't even sat their Nat 5s. Of course this amendment was voted against. I wish this was flagged up more in the reporting. But no, let's just wheel Ellie Gomersal out again who says this is all just about a bit of admin.

wingsoverscotland.com/what-youre-willing-to-hear/

'...the people of Scotland overwhelmingly oppose the SNP’s dreadful gender reform plans, AND they support the UK government’s lawful intervention in the matter'

I am very happy that Stergeon is taking this decision to court as it will be the last thing she does as 1st minister.
She made a massive miscalculation when she chose to use transpeople as a weapon to break up the union.
Whilst I accept that she honestly believes that she is a feminist and that twaw however belief and fact are very rarely the same thing. In her persecution Olympics identity politics addled brain she saw a perfect way to both push her personal agenda for independence and her (regressive) woke politics. This bill was a win win scenario to her way of thinking either it went through and caused administrative chaos between the UK tax system and Scottish systems proving the need for independence or it would be blocked by the UK government and she could claim Westminster interference and again claim it proves the need for independence, which is exactly what she is now doing.
This brings us to her echo chamber miscalculation. She failed to calculate the strength of feeling, shear outrage and tenacity of women in defence of our rights (should have read sun sui "when women wake mountains move") nor our ability to organise and publicly protest this regardless of the personal consequences. She thought that we would be good little women and move over for the men (be kind and all that). But we didn't and this should have given her pause for thought, it didn't. She dismissed us as old irrelevant bigots and doubled down again and again. All the time painting herself into a corner, she has spent all of her political capital to get here and when the courts comes down on the side of the UK government proving all of her lies and ending the GRR bill that 2/3 voters oppose she will have nowhere to turn.
Add to that all the sunlight that this is giving to the issue of granting transpeople extra rights means actively removing women's rights and safeguarding. The conversation then changes from poor vulnerable transpeople to why are we taking equal rights, safety and dignity away from 51% of the population so that 0.5% can feel validated.

Aye. Is this a good use of public money? Of course it fucking isn't.

Thanks @Signalbox , Judicial Review then Supreme Court, I suppose. When she loses the judicial review (assuming she gets leave to have one in the first place)

Looks like a Judicial Review in the first instance.

mobile.twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1615370360504860676

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64315517

Interesting opinion from a former SC judge.

@Signalbox , i don't know. Given its UK law that is being disputed- section 35 Scotland Act - maybe it would go straight to SC.

I doubt GRA will be repealed but I am hopeful of
a) clarifying via statutory instrument (not as fancy as an Act of Parliament and easier to pass) that sex in Equality Act means biological sex not legal sex
b) formal guidance issued by various relevant departments how the single sex provision operates to make it easier to keep women's refuges, prisons, maternity/miscarriage support groups and sports free from trans identified Men
c) confirmation that those deluded women who want to legally identify out of being women but yet have babies, still have maternity rights.

Is that automatic that it goes to the SC? That would make sense since it’s almost guaranteed to end up there anyway.

For context, the Scotgov recently lost in the Supreme Court on the UN Rights of the child legislation. And in another bill on LAs.

'Judges at the Supreme Court have ruled that provisions in two bills passed by MSPs were beyond Holyrood's powers.

MSPs unanimously backed the bills - which enshrine treaties on children's rights and local government in Scots law - prior to May's Holyrood election.

However after a challenge from UK law officers, judges said the legislation could affect Westminster's ability to make laws for Scotland.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58794698

I predict this will ultimately lead to a repeal of the GRA. It's bad law, as others have said, and every win for the TRAs just pushes the insanity of this movement further into the limelight - and into the voting public's awareness. I suspect things will get more bumpy before reason and logic return to the room.

Part of that return to sanity, when it happens, must include serious reflection on how our governing bodies and our institutions became so easily captured by what amounts to a well funded, top down religious movement untethered by reality and without any public scrutiny.

@JustWaking read somewhere that there may be a Tory rebellion if they try to include it. So fucking sick of relying on Tories to protect women and kids that are likely to grow up to be gay, lesbian or bisexual.

I suspect the inclusion of trans so-called "conversion therapy " is the quid pro quo to appease the menzfeels.

It seems that way to me too - which is a disaster. They've admitted that including gender identity in the law is much more complex and prone to unexpected side effects than sexual orientation. That's still the case. Nothing has changed. It's still bad law.

We've been fooled before with the GRA, which despite best intentions and lots of assurances that it was for a tiny number of marginalised people and wouldn't be a problem for anyone else, has proved a complete Trojan horse, and has resulted in the destruction of so many single sex spaces - as fearful people and organisations have gone not just over and above the law, but flying past in a totally different direction.

Don't let's drop our guard in the relief of the GRR bill being stopped.

Compromise doesn't mean 'if we win one, we have to let them win one too'. That's female socialisation talking.

Compromise means that we want everyone's needs to be considered and balanced. Trans people and women. And that means that if they throw 100 terrible laws at us, we have to stand firm against all 100 of the terrible laws.

Including Gender Identity in the conversion therapy is another GRA-like Trojan horse. Once it's there, it will be incredibly hard to repeal. Keep writing to MPs, keep pushing!

I think it goes to Court of Session in Scotland first - Scotland's highest court. Then if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, it would go to the Supreme Court