Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

LGBTQ+ Organisations to intervene on the UK Government's Block on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland

67 replies

IwantToRetire · 19/08/2023 01:06

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Reform (“ICDR”) have jointly been given leave to intervene in an important judicial review relating to the UK Government’s power to prevent legislation approved by the Scottish Parliament becoming law.
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/adam-wagner-and-stephanie-davins-clients-granted-permission-intervene-important-constitutional

.
Europe's largest LGBTQ+ right charity Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (ICDR) have together been granted leave to intervene in an important Scottish judicial review in which the Scottish Government is challenging the UK Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack MP, on the issuing of a “section 35” order to block the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill into law.

A senior judge has permitted these organisations to submit written evidence to the court, outlining their rationale behind challenging the UK Government’s stance that there would be adverse consequences if the Bill became law

Each of these charities represents a different area of relevant expertise, and by working together they will seek to provide evidence to the court demonstrating that:

  • International comparators demonstrate that measures similar to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill have been implemented in comparable jurisdictions, without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.
  • The “adverse impacts” on equalities law identified by the UK Government are, in fact, unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts
  • Parliament did not intend the section 35 powers be used in the case of a mere policy disagreement or without first exhausting other avenues for dialogue between the UK Government and Scottish Parliament.

NB the full story is on Stonewall's web site https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/lgbtq-organisations-intervene-uk-governments-block-gender-recognition-reform-bill

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
6
Hepwo · 19/08/2023 21:57

The explanation re Adam Wagner

LGBTQ+ Organisations to intervene on the UK Government's Block on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland
LGBTQ+ Organisations to intervene on the UK Government's Block on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland
ArabeIIaKarenScott · 19/08/2023 20:57

Surely EHRC are going to be asked for input? I wonder if both the Scottish and UK branches will be involved.

ArabeIIaKarenScott · 19/08/2023 20:54

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 19:56

Women (and some men) are currently barricading, furiously hammering retaining walls and struts to bolster that very thin and very fragile veneer.

Show quote history

It's definitely the Battle of Cable Street round here.

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 20:44

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 20:28

He's not acting pro bono as he's out of jurisdiction. He is ONLY a volunteer activist. He WANTS people to be forced to submit.

What a disappointment.

LoobiJee · 19/08/2023 20:33

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 20:28

He's not acting pro bono as he's out of jurisdiction. He is ONLY a volunteer activist. He WANTS people to be forced to submit.

“out of jurisdiction” = because he doesn’t live in Scotland?

(Genuine question btw, I’ve no idea who he is.)

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 20:28

He's not acting pro bono as he's out of jurisdiction. He is ONLY a volunteer activist. He WANTS people to be forced to submit.

LoobiJee · 19/08/2023 20:18

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 18:25

Its been pointed out on X that he is volunteering as an activist on this.

If I come across the tweet again I will post it.

Show quote history

BoiledBeetle’s post upthread quotes this tweet.

“Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the ICDR are represented by DLA Piper Scotland LLP. James Findlay K.C. and David Blair are instructed in the intervention. Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings. All are acting pro bono.”

So yes, they are all acting as activists.

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 19:56

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 19:51

The veneer of civilisation is very thin and very fragile. Chaos and insanity is barely a millimeter or a moment's thought below the surface.

Women (and some men) are currently barricading, furiously hammering retaining walls and struts to bolster that very thin and very fragile veneer.

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 19:51

The veneer of civilisation is very thin and very fragile. Chaos and insanity is barely a millimeter or a moment's thought below the surface.

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 19:45

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 19:18

Moralists like Adam automatically default to the position that people who have a place in the world based on a settled understand like sex or kinship or nationality are narrow minded, and only the unboundaried, the permanently open, and the woolly minded that will find excuses for why all people have to stand back and conceed when any one else wants something someone else already has, are truly moral.

He would have been a monk taking money from the gullible for greedy bishops whilst praying in a monestary in earlier times.

Show quote history

The "everywheres" and the "somewheres"?
Didn't I hear that this is viewed as a vaguely disguised anti Semitic trait, along with any reference to the long march thru history/the institutions and Cultural Marxism?

I think this loosely ties in to why so many New Atheists and humanists have jumped ship from physical reality to support a cause that has less evidence underpinning it than evidence for a giant turtle holding up the Earth in the celestial sphere.

Because any moralistic/non relativist/judgemental takes/expression of disgust...is all so frowned on and discouraged in this new fluid definitions/flexible boundaries/language dictating and overriding physical reality and established civic mores brave new world.

Unless of course your principles align with open borders, the international citizen, the tyranny of the nuclear family...and sex based rights definitions in law.

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 19:18

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 19:05

Too bad about Adam Wagner. I often read his Twitter feed on migration human rights issues, but I won't have any interest in his take here.

Show quote history

Moralists like Adam automatically default to the position that people who have a place in the world based on a settled understand like sex or kinship or nationality are narrow minded, and only the unboundaried, the permanently open, and the woolly minded that will find excuses for why all people have to stand back and conceed when any one else wants something someone else already has, are truly moral.

He would have been a monk taking money from the gullible for greedy bishops whilst praying in a monestary in earlier times.

RealityFan · 19/08/2023 19:05

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 18:25

Its been pointed out on X that he is volunteering as an activist on this.

If I come across the tweet again I will post it.

Show quote history

Too bad about Adam Wagner. I often read his Twitter feed on migration human rights issues, but I won't have any interest in his take here.

FroodwithaKaren · 19/08/2023 19:03

We know from long and direct experience on this board that the response to all that from a key member of the legal team will be to shrug, say it's only women and doesn't matter to or affect any real people, so no worries.

This is going to paint the misogyny across the sky.

FroodwithaKaren · 19/08/2023 19:00

Oh and I forgot to add:

we've been asking too (for years) how is this going to be measured to assess the impact?

How do you count the number of women who stop using public facilities, turn around and walk away at the sight of a male person out of fear of saying anything?

How do we count the number of women sexually harassed and assaulted who won't even be able to report it, when even the ones raped are struggling to get justice?

How do you count the number of women who don't access rape crisis services? Or who die at the hands of their partner because they couldn't go into a refuge because a female only one wasn't allowed in case male people pouted and felt that permitting women a small corner of accessibility was an insult to their dignity?

FroodwithaKaren · 19/08/2023 18:58

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 17:58

I'm just going to repeat what I said half asleep last night.

So they have downgraded their "no adverse impact" somewhat.

without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.

unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts

So all the lies were lies then?

Its going to be interesting to see what adverse impacts the men want.

The bold comments are extracted from the position on Stonewalls page. If you have followed any of the trans groups so far the story has always been NO adverse impacts recorded anywhere in the world.

They have now actually realised that this lie wasn't doing them any favours and have resorted to gross minimisation as a strategy.

So as I said above, I am looking forward to hearing what adverse impacts these men have decided they expect women to capitulate to.

They will of course insist that we're already "accepting" these adverse impacts and so more of the same is acceptable to them.

Let's hear it. Let's hear this mostly male line up of activists and lawyers tell the court exactly what adverse impacts they expect to enforce here.

The question FWR has been asking activists for years now:

Exactly what number of women are acceptable collateral damage to permit male people to have these freedoms of self expression?

We're talking
Loss of privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy
Right to homosexuality
Right to freedom of assembly
Rights as a sex class in law
Exclusion
Harassment
Assault
Rape

To enable unboundaried, fantastically selfish male self expression.

Let's compare the human rights involved.

OhcantthInkofaname · 19/08/2023 18:45

LoobiJee · 19/08/2023 07:17

“in very rare factual contexts”

Do the TQ organisations set out those “very rare” situations where they accept there’s an impact?

Of course they don't. Because they refuse to believe that they have differences to biological females. I think its time for LGB to break off from the TQ.

Hepwo · 19/08/2023 18:25

HeedlessAndUnbridledConcupiscence · 19/08/2023 13:25

<Sigh> There have been times when Adam Wagner seemed to understand the enormous hit to women's rights but obviously not.

Its been pointed out on X that he is volunteering as an activist on this.

If I come across the tweet again I will post it.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 19/08/2023 18:16

Let's hear this mostly male line up of activists and lawyers tell the court exactly what adverse impacts they expect to enforce here.

And this is why, although I dont accept they should have been given a voice, it looks like there need to be some groups also given standing to counter argue.

OP posts:
Hepwo · 19/08/2023 17:58

I'm just going to repeat what I said half asleep last night.

So they have downgraded their "no adverse impact" somewhat.

without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.

unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts

So all the lies were lies then?

Its going to be interesting to see what adverse impacts the men want.

The bold comments are extracted from the position on Stonewalls page. If you have followed any of the trans groups so far the story has always been NO adverse impacts recorded anywhere in the world.

They have now actually realised that this lie wasn't doing them any favours and have resorted to gross minimisation as a strategy.

So as I said above, I am looking forward to hearing what adverse impacts these men have decided they expect women to capitulate to.

They will of course insist that we're already "accepting" these adverse impacts and so more of the same is acceptable to them.

Let's hear it. Let's hear this mostly male line up of activists and lawyers tell the court exactly what adverse impacts they expect to enforce here.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 19/08/2023 17:20

IwantToRetire · 19/08/2023 02:01

There is another long paper from the Government setting out (I think) why they thought it necessarty to use Section 35. This is the 4th section:

Adverse effects in relation to the operation of the Equality Act 2010

(a) Exacerbation of existing issues with the operation of the Equality Act 2010The amendments made by the Bill to the 2004 Act will allow a new and significantly broader category of people, who are currently unable to obtain a full GRC, to do so. This group (the new cohort) comprises:

  • applicants aged 16 to 17
  • applicants without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria
  • applicants who have not lived for 2 years in their acquired gender
The UK government has assessed that the creation of this new and very different cohort of eligible applicants would adversely affect the operation of the 2010 Act, identifying 4 key areas:
  • clubs and associations (where exceptions apply in respect of sex but not in respect of gender reassignment)
  • the operation of the PSED
  • equal pay
  • provisions where exceptions apply for both sex and gender reassignment
Clubs and associations (where exceptions apply in respect of sex but not in respect of gender reassignment)The provisions in the 2010 Act relating to associations with 25 or more members (Part 7) mean that associations are able to restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, so they could restrict membership to men or to women. Many forms of women’s groups and clubs, including any membership-based[footnote 10] support groups for vulnerable women or women who have been victims of rape or sexual violence, or those designed to foster women and girls’ participation in particular activities or sports, will be covered in respect of associations which have regulated their membership to be women-only. Where an individual has changed their sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act by obtaining a full GRC, the association is therefore not able to refuse membership on the grounds of their previous sex. They also cannot restrict membership to people who are not covered by the gender reassignment characteristic because an association’s membership can only be based on a shared protected characteristic and not the absence of it. The Bill’s creation of a new cohort with the ability to change their legal sex will significantly change the profile and number of individuals that associations will be unable to exclude from membership on grounds of sex. The 2010 Act’s measures in relation to associations prevent them from denying membership to a presently small and highly defined group of people who have changed their legal sex under the 2004 Act as it currently applies. This was the context in which the 2010 Act was enacted. The Bill will adversely affect the operation of the 2010 Act by changing the effect of its requirements on single-sex associations, who will be required to accept, without discrimination, members from a new, larger and different cohort, who would not have met the requirements currently set out in the 2004 Act. Whereas current GRC recipients have established a stable gender identity for at least 2 years, recipients under the Bill may have done so for only 6 months[footnote 11] and in a manner which is self-defined. Where an association had reason to exclude the opposite sex, it is reasonable to assume that a liberalisation of the process for changing legal sex will create new challenges, problems or concerns. Accommodations, adjustments and compromises that may have been reasonably provided on an exceptional basis, may not be possible for a larger number. Provisions that may have been appropriate for individuals who have lived in their acquired gender over a significant period of time may not be suitable where this is not the case. The Bill therefore changes the nature and level of expectations of single-sex associations as compared to those set by the 2010 Act when enacted. In doing so, it may lead to associations, including long established associations, being at greater risk of being found to be operating unlawfully (by excluding transgender women, for example) or making decisions to cease operating because of the perceived risks. Similarly potential founders of new such associations may not proceed due to equivalent concerns. These changes could lead to the loss of this provision, undermining efforts to foster greater participation of women in a particular activity, or to the self-exclusion of women who, for religious, philosophical belief or other reasons, may only feel able to attend an association if they understand them to be segregated by biological sex and who are more likely to believe, given the increase and expansion of the cohort if the Bill is enacted, that this is unlikely.

Sorry to quote myself but this is the signifigant arguement. How having different laws in different parts of the UK will impact on the EA.

To see full statement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

So unclear how outside bodies have any business being allowed to put forward arguements. If anybody should surely it would be the EHRC?

I wonder if any of the GC women's campaign groups will now try to be included.

HTML version

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 19/08/2023 17:15

I did paste in the Governments arguements about why they invoke Section 35. They aren't addressing anything about the rights and wrongs of trans, so cant understand why groups representing trans have a voice in it.

The Government is saying that you cant have different parts of the UK with different laws relating to the same issue. ie GRAs, the age at which they can be obtained.

So they are saying that this is one instance where Scotland can not makes its own laws.

I thought it was really good that they managed to summarise it to 4 lines.

So it is about the constitutional rights of each government.

(But and I dont wanat to derail another thread with Labour cant be trusted, but worth remembering that Starmer thinks that the UK Government should not intervene which mean he thinks it is okay that within the UK different access to a GRA is okay. And he's a lawyer???)

OP posts:
HeedlessAndUnbridledConcupiscence · 19/08/2023 13:25

<Sigh> There have been times when Adam Wagner seemed to understand the enormous hit to women's rights but obviously not.

Boiledbeetle · 19/08/2023 13:16

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the ICDR are represented by DLA Piper Scotland LLP. James Findlay K.C. and David Blair are instructed in the intervention. Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings. All are acting pro bono.

Sits on hands.

HeedlessAndUnbridledConcupiscence · 19/08/2023 13:06

RebelliousCow · 19/08/2023 12:41

I read of one particular case that occured in Argentina - where VAWG, as elsewhere in central and south America is epidemic in proportion -and as a result the muder of women and girls is also recorded as a 'femicide'.

Two Transwomen who were working as prostitutes brutally attacked and murdered a woman who was also working as a prostitute - but because of their trans identity it was not recorded a a femicide; whereas in the case of a TW who was murdered by his boyfriend , the crime was recorded as a femicide because the victim identified as a woman.

There's Karen Ingala Smith's femicide census in the UK.

Do you recall the Observer's campaign to end femicide? And the revelations about the age at which deaths used not to be counted for women?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4185386-The-Observer-End-Femicide-campaign

The Observer - End Femicide campaign | Mumsnet

Shocking article about the murders of older women and how the system fails older women on so many levels. It’s a very harrowing read but well done to...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4185386-The-Observer-End-Femicide-campaign

LoobiJee · 19/08/2023 12:59

OldCrone · 19/08/2023 10:04

Isn't it about how changing the GRA in Scotland (gender recognition is a devolved area) will affect the way the EA2010 (not devolved) will operate in the whole of the UK?

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill operates at a complex intersection between devolved and reserved matters. It is about a devolved matter (gender recognition reform), but it has potential consequences for how the law would operate in reserved areas (particularly equal opportunities law and the Equality Act 2010).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/

Show quote history

Yes, that’s right, I was focusing on the underlying principle of not exceeding devolved powers (at least as I understand it) - that by passing legislation in Scotland which would have the effect of being akin to changing the law outside Scotland, they would be exceeding their devolved powers. Whilst the bill doesn’t say “and amend EA2010 in the following ways”, if it has implications in terms of the practical effect which amount to making changes to EA2010 then the UK Government is perfectly entitled to object on constitutional/ devolution grounds.

Swipe left for the next trending thread