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

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.

tsk, tsk.

The men and the Alpha yet Most Victimised Caste have decided that the number that matters for the impact on women is n+N where both n and N are decided upon by them.

And by that time, what's the point of legislating about something that nobody but women care about especially as women don't constitute a meaningful legal class by the time we're at that pass.

Gendered Intelligence co wrote much of the EHRC Equality Act trans guidelines for organisations that trans rights activists rely on. This was a result of the government response to the Maria Miller led Trans Equality Inquiry in 2016.

It appears to be an organisation ostensibly promoting education of constitutional issues but its charitable objects overwhelmingly refer to human rights. Kezia Dugdale is a trustee.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5175689/full-print

The legalities will be about a specific, relatively narrow issue. But the way it is addressed, the 'interveners' and the resultant debate will shine even more sunshine upon the issues. More blanket BeKinders and Doesn'tAffectMes to be informed and influenced. More politicians to reverse ferret when they see more potential votes lost.

Puuuuuullll - on both aspects.

Yes, it is.

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/

It'll be another "OperationLetThemSpeak"
Gendered Intelligence were outed in the Hannah Barnes book as being an adult organisation with an inappropriate influence on child health at GIDS. Presumably they'll have some revealing arguments about why other people's 16 year olds should be encouraged down a pathway to infertility, drug use and being a life long medical patient in trying to achieve the unachievable?

I understand your concern about the wider issues, Jellysaurus. But as Crouton says, while the UK Government’s use of their Section 35 power should be a narrow constitutional test, and will in fact be what the judges have to make their decision on, allowing those two campaign groups to contribute will inevitably broaden the public debate about this out on to the wider issues. It means that groups concerned about women’s rights and children’s safeguarding need to be ready to influence the public debate.

This will be happening in a pre-election period and we have seen that Labour in England and Scotland (where they are in opposition and seeking to be elected in the future) have changed their public positioning on this, having seen what happened to the SNP after the GRR fiasco.

It is the job of UK Government to win the constitutional argument. Those concerned with women’s rights and safeguarding children need to make the wider arguments about why the SNP’s legislation harms children and women. The resounding message for politicians needs to be “massive vote loser” as that’s what they care about.

This should have been a constitutional test only but allowing SW, GI etc to intervene has already broadened the remit and it will be interesting to see where it goes. There may be quite a lot of sunlight in court which, although it may not affect the judgment, will get the issues out there even further.

Exactly, LoobiJee. Hence my concern that the flaws in this legislation, that requires rapists to be imprisoned with a supply of women to rape, and parents to be punished for protecting their children from being cut, are not issues that will affect the outcome of this JR.

Sorry, UNHRC should be UNCRC

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-accused-turning-childrens-rights-28830728

Worth noting that the Scogov has a history of making grand empty gestures in order to trigger showdowns with WM. see also the UNHRC rights of the child case. Which they lost.

For the SNP it's purely showboating, an attempt to claim that evil WM won't allow Scotland to do what it wants. Trans people are barely a consideration for them.

“Or is this purely about how Scot Govt's actions could conflict with existing UK legislation?”

It’s about the Scottish Government / Scottish Parliament passing legislation which goes beyond its legal powers. If the Scottish Parliament passed flawed legislation which was wholly within its devolved powers then that would be a matter for the people of Scotland, and not a matter (legally) for the UK Government.

If Scottish Parliament passes legislation which goes beyond its devolved powers, that’s a matter which the UK Government can involve itself in, under the terms of devolution.

'There are many countries across the world, including very recently Spain, where trans people can self-determine their legal gender. That Scotland has democratically decided that its trans citizens should be able to do the same should be upheld and respected.'

Our elected representatives may identify as Scotland, but they certainly don't speak for the majority of people's views on the subject.

Not sure Humza has the stomach for this fight. He's scunnered on continuing so many fights he didn't start.

Have those organisations asked to make representations?

The most they can do is identify that it has never happened, because this is a belief system based on personal fiction based on feelings, not facts, where you look straight at reality and deny it's there. And where one group have the power to set the fiction and compel the other lesser group to unconditionally enable it up to and including accepting violation and injury, under threat of punishment.

This is the part that really has to be addressed.

But in the mean time, goody. Put the emotional support zoo on standby, and let's have the LGBA intervene too please, because otherwise it's getting rather plain that it isn't about LGBT voices in their full range of life experience and insight on this, but about a political movement claiming to speak for LGBT people but only those who are politically compliant and useful, and attempting to warp the agenda their way on this principle.

So are we up for actual democracy or a totalitarian woman-hating, misogynist and homophobic nightmare that enables adults to harm children, Holyrood? Own it.

.......and there is a thread on this board too " It'll never happen".

It's is just a lie to suggest there have been no adverse effects.

Reduxx is jam packed with reports of what has happened in other countries in which self Id has been passed.

Was UK Govt's Section 35 intervention, and is Scot Govt's Judicial Review, anything to do with the human harms of enabling trans ideology? After all, UK Govt already enables it by having enshrined part of it in UK law. Or is this purely about how Scot Govt's actions could conflict with existing UK legislation? Dry legalese, rather than actual human interests and safeguarding? Is it really as clear as we think it is?

The EA2010 is mentioned throughout that document, not just Part 4. This is from Part 1:

The 2010 Act makes “sex” a protected characteristic and makes provisions about when conduct relating to that protected characteristic is unlawful. Section 9 of the 2004 Act provides that unless exceptions apply, the effect of a full GRC is that “for all purposes” the person’s sex becomes as certified. As a matter of general principle, a full GRC has the effect of changing the sex that a person has as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the 2010 Act.[footnote 2] This is subject to a contrary intention being established in relation to the interpretation of particular provisions of the 2010 Act.

Which is what we've been saying for years on here. If 'sex' in the EA is legal sex, rather than biological sex, then the PC of sex in the EA would be meaningless under self ID, since any man could legally become a woman and be indistinguishable (in a legal sense) from actual female women.

Why can Stonewall et al intervene and not, say, the Muslim Council of Great Britain? Or the Christian Institute? Both of which represent the interests of a number of people who could be adversely affected by the new law (Muslim women in particular).

Those groups with an interest in child safeguarding will need to have their evidence ready on the harm to children of being put on the social transition > hormone treatment > surgery pathway.

This is something I was wondering - will groups opposed to Stonewall et al.'s agenda get to submit evidence?

So presumably the TQ groups’ aim in participating in this legal action is to ‘win the moral argument’ as they would see it and influence public opinion

If that's what they're thinking, it's likely to backfire. The more publicity the trans cause gets, the less the public like it. Though I guess these organisations have to go through the motions to justify their existence.

The inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds in the bill will be a focus for the TQ activists.

As we know, chipping away at age restrictions is an ongoing campaign goal for certain interest groups. And certain stakeholders have a commercial interest in reducing age thresholds as a way of increasing the number of potential fee paying customers. The Gender GP website has a blogpost about ‘evidence’ of children experiencing gender dysphoria at a younger age.

Those groups with an interest in child safeguarding will need to have their evidence ready on the harm to children of being put on the social transition > hormone treatment > surgery pathway.