Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

JR of ScotGov's Section 35/GRR bill - next week

135 replies

ArabeIIaScott · 11/09/2023 19:11

MBM have shared info on the 'interveners': Scottish Trans/Equality Network, Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the ICDR:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/11/who-are-the-interveners-in-the-judicial-review-of-the-uk-governments-use-of-section-35/

'Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings'

Who are the interveners in the judicial review of the UK Government’s use of Section 35? - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

The judicial review of the UK Government’s decision to invoke Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill will be heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh from 19-21 September. La...

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/11/who-are-the-interveners-in-the-judicial-review-of-the-uk-governments-use-of-section-35

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 18:03

Because they are funded not to.

IwantToRetire · 20/09/2023 17:22

SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 17:09

I do worry that women’s group (unfunded, unlike the large Scot gov funded lobby groups represented pro bono by other Scot gov funded legal groups) should have applied to be interveners in the case to put information to court counteracting the standard TRA arguments that ‘it is fine elsewhere’ etc.

I think that is a really interesting and sadly disappointing situation.

On another thread I was commenting on how VAW groups now seem to be prepared to take a political stance on all sorts of issues, the police, cost of living crisis, racism, etc., and put out joint statements. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4900356-vawg-is-a-gendered-issue-which-is-deeply-rooted-in-societal-inequality-it-is-violence-that-is-directed-against-a-woman-because-she-is-a-woman-or-that-affects-women-disproportionately

But for some reason as the very groups whose purpose is based on the reality of the sex class of women they never comment.

So given that they are prepared to take a public position on any number of other issues it is extremely worrying that this is one issue they do not / have not commentated on.

I wonder why?

VAWG is a gendered issue which is deeply rooted in societal inequality. It is violence that is “directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”. | Mumsnet

Does anyone else think this statement is very feminist lite? Seems to gloss over the issue of women as a sex class being subjected to violence by the...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4900356-vawg-is-a-gendered-issue-which-is-deeply-rooted-in-societal-inequality-it-is-violence-that-is-directed-against-a-woman-because-she-is-a-woman-or-that-affects-women-disproportionately

SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 17:09

I do worry that women’s group (unfunded, unlike the large Scot gov funded lobby groups represented pro bono by other Scot gov funded legal groups) should have applied to be interveners in the case to put information to court counteracting the standard TRA arguments that ‘it is fine elsewhere’ etc.

IwantToRetire · 20/09/2023 17:06

I wonder if her publicly admitted misunderstanding about Gender Re-Assignment is grounds to saying her earlier ruling was defective and should be over turned.

Kucinghitam · 20/09/2023 17:02

Thanks to everyone who has been updating. Overall (in particular given her previous ruling) that Lady Haldane seems most persuaded by the, um, Righteous Side, and will probably rule accordingly.

IwantToRetire · 20/09/2023 17:00

Sorry, but yes horrifying to learn via this thread that Lady Haldane did not seem to be aware that people can get a GRC through self identifying. She presumably has read the EA that says gender reassignment includes those "intending" to transition and are currently living as the "other sex".

Baffling.

IwantToRetire · 20/09/2023 16:58

Just to add, and this has been said over and over again, and is in Lady Haldane's earlier ruling which you can download and read that:

For "all purposes" someone with a GRC is legally the other sex but also that as specified in the EA the single sex exemptions exist to allow women only (ie biological females) services etc.. And at the time Nicola Sturgeon also said this,

The problem in Scotland was that a lot of people were going round, are still going round, saying the single sex exemptions dont apply.

And the other problem is that thanks to Stonewall etc., many more places / services could argue that they are entitled to apply the single sex exemptions, but dont do so.

That is part of the problem. The impression given that nobody actually cares about single sex provision. Including some so called women's groups.

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 15:55

From the BBC live coverage:

  • 'Judge Lady Haldane has retired to consider whether the UK government was within its rights to veto the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed at Holyrood
  • The judge is expected to take some weeks to consider her ruling.

''The final question for the court was what to do about a looming appeal in a tangentially-related case – an appeal by the campaign group For Women Scotland in a case about the Scottish government’s definition of a woman.
Both sides in this case cited precedent from that case, which oddly enough was chaired by the same judge.
They have agreed again on the next steps – that Lady Haldane should go off to start on her judgement regardless.
If the appeal ruling was to somehow come out first and throw a spanner in the works, the thinking is that the court could reconvene and hear some fresh submissions.
But everyone will likely be hoping that the judgement is done and dusted sooner rather than later.'

And a word of the day:

'Judge Lady Haldane...tells the court she will make "avizandum", which means "further consideration".'

So now it's up to Lady Haldane.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-66865088

Gender reform bill: Scottish government challenges block in court - BBC News

The Scottish and UK governments return to court over Holyrood plans to make it easier for people to change legal gender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-66865088

OP posts:
TheClitterati · 20/09/2023 15:47

"Haldane is calling it an 'IT problem' again."

That's so dehumanising.

<I'll get my coat>

JoanOgden · 20/09/2023 14:36

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:26

Haldane is calling it an 'IT problem' again.

Clearly she has no experience of the horrific amount of work and cost required to make significant changes (which this surely would be) to ageing, patched-up government IT systems

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:36

Signalbox · 20/09/2023 14:32

Is she referring to it as an IT problem or is she referring to the SG position?

She was saying that one of the objections raised by the UK gov is to do with recording data etc, and calling this an 'IT problem' .

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:35

From the EN submission:

'A GRC recognises the way in which a trans person is already living, it does not grant permission to them to do so. There are, as the Intervener submits in more detail below, very few occasions in which having a GRC has a practical effect.'

'in connection with the risk of abuse of the new system, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to think of any circumstance in which being in possession of a GRC would enable a person to carry out a harmful act when they could not have done so without a GRC'

'Once a GRC is obtained, the person’s birth certificate will match their lived gender; it will be impossible to know from the new birth certificate that the person had a different gender at birth.'

'If an employer, service provider or other had reason to believe that the individual had obtained a GRC (Scottish or otherwise) fraudulently, there would be no barrier to that being reported to the police. Given the concerns expressed by the respondent about the socalled lack of safeguards in respect of applications under the Bill, this 5 provides further assurance that ‘bad actors’ can be identified and investigated'

'Since the enactment of the GRA 2004 it has been the case that an individual who holds a GRC is for all purposes the acquired gender in law (section 9 GRA). The protected characteristic of ‘sex’ is defined in the Equality Act 2010 as being either a man or a woman (section 11 EqA). It has therefore been the case since before the enactment of the Equality Act 2010 that an employee holding a GRC could raise claims of sex discrimination or equal pay on the basis of their acquired gender, citing comparators of the opposite sex to their acquired gender.'

'...it would be a relatively simple matter to extend to associations with 25 or more members (Part 7 of EqA), and to single sex schools (Part 6 of EqA) the gender reassignment exception which applies in relation to single-sex services (EqA Sch.3 para28).'

OP posts:
Signalbox · 20/09/2023 14:32

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:26

Haldane is calling it an 'IT problem' again.

Is she referring to it as an IT problem or is she referring to the SG position?

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:27

Ooh, they've published the Equality Network's submission, too.

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1704448407505445002

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1704448407505445002

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 14:26

Haldane is calling it an 'IT problem' again.

OP posts:
OP posts:
OvaHere · 20/09/2023 13:27

Signalbox · 19/09/2023 18:06

Oh yes.

Considering this is now her 2nd high profile case on sex / gender and how the GRR interacts with the EA you'd think she'd be thoroughly aware of all the detail by now.

This is seriously infuriating. Women on MN and random Twitter accounts appear to have better understanding of the implications and reality of all this.

Signalbox · 20/09/2023 13:14

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 13:00

Haldane gave a judgement that asserted two contradictory things. I believe she was reflecting the absolute fucking guddle law as it stands.

Perhaps the only way all this can be fixed is by scrapping the GRA.

Yes, for the law to return to reality.

Waitwhat23 · 20/09/2023 13:05

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 12:33

Said it before, will undoubtedly say it again. We are incredibly lucky to have MBM up here.

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 13:00

SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 12:48

But Haldane herself ruled that it does.

Haldane gave a judgement that asserted two contradictory things. I believe she was reflecting the absolute fucking guddle law as it stands.

Perhaps the only way all this can be fixed is by scrapping the GRA.

OP posts:
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 20/09/2023 12:57

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 12:33

Useful, thank you

SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 12:48

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 12:32

Manderley may be correct in that the Scotgov argument is that a GRC actually has no material affect.

I.e. they are arguing that men are already using women's spaces etc without GRCs, on a 'self ID' basis.

This is the case. We have a man running Rape Crisis Edinburgh. We have men in women's prisons. We have men using women's toilets and changing rooms.

The argument that this is a bad thing, and that women are entitled to single sex spaces is a separate one.

The whole argument seems to be that a GRC is a meaningless piece of paper that has no effect on anything, because men can just do what they want anyway.

At least, that's my understanding.

But Haldane herself ruled that it does.

ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 12:33

Commentary on yesterday's session from MBM. Who actually know what they're talking about.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/20/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-reflections-on-the-first-day-of-the-judicial-review-of-the-section-35-order/

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: reflections on the first day of the judicial review of the Section 35 Order - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

Yesterday saw the first day of the Scottish Government’s (SG) challenge to the Section 35 Order applied by the UK Government to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Information on how to view the remaining proceedings are provided here, along...

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/20/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-reflections-on-the-first-day-of-the-judicial-review-of-the-section-35-order

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 20/09/2023 12:32

Manderley may be correct in that the Scotgov argument is that a GRC actually has no material affect.

I.e. they are arguing that men are already using women's spaces etc without GRCs, on a 'self ID' basis.

This is the case. We have a man running Rape Crisis Edinburgh. We have men in women's prisons. We have men using women's toilets and changing rooms.

The argument that this is a bad thing, and that women are entitled to single sex spaces is a separate one.

The whole argument seems to be that a GRC is a meaningless piece of paper that has no effect on anything, because men can just do what they want anyway.

At least, that's my understanding.

OP posts:
SaffronSpice · 20/09/2023 12:25

Manderleyagain · 20/09/2023 12:16

I don't think the fact lady haldene now knows you can change the sex on your drivers licence without a grc helps us. I got the impression (from live tweeting, not listening) that the argument will be:

  • a single sex association is techically for those legally of that sex
  • in practice membership is based on sex as on passport/drivers licence
  • no one needs a grc to change their passport/drivers licence
  • therefore changing the criteria for obtaining a grc doesn't impact the operation of the law on single sex associations

That might tell her what a daft situation we have got into without proper democratic debate, but I don't know of it will make her think the grr affects the operation of uk law.

But surely all that is irrelevant? What matters is the law and that GRC impact ‘sex’ under the equality act, so if Scotland changes who can get a GRC they are impacting reserved legislation which is beyond their competency?