For Women Scotland have lost their appeal

doesn't it fail v)?

I was thinking that. But on reflection I don't think it does, as a belief. The consequences of it do, but not the actual belief.

I don't think they'd go for it though. I'm sure they don't want everyone to realise that they really do believe that their feelings supersede biology.

doesn't it fail v)?

That's pretty good.

Yes that sounds more like it.

They would disagree with "individual preference" or "changeable" I think depending on what they were trying to claim at the time.

"How dare you call it an ideology, your belief is an ideology", er yes I do believe feminism is ideological, and?

I agree, defining their belief is as easy as nailing jelly to a wall. Once you have defined it then it should create clear boundaries that can be applied consistently and TRAs absolutely don’t want that.

This. I've never actually seen it defined, just wails of "peoples existence is not up for debate".

I agree, defining their belief is as easy as nailing jelly to a wall. Once you have defined it then it should create clear boundaries that can be applied consistently and TRAs absolutely don’t want that.

We are happy with the original definition of sex and male, female = adult human female or male etc. It’s the GRA muddying the waters with a legal fiction that the problem.

I don't think they want their beliefs characterised as a belief. They think their beliefs should be accepted as fact, and biological reality recharacterised as a belief.

I have no doubt that belief in transgenderism would be protected under the belief pc of the EA.

It would have to satisfy the five Grainger criteria:

(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Personally, I'd take issue with cogency and cohesion but still think it would sail through the tests with the right case.

From that Michael Foran thread:

”I don’t think my comments in that piece aged badly at all. I was clear where the ambiguity lay and wrote without accusing my interlocutor of being an ideologically motivated hack with a mediocre grasp of the law and a propensity to hurl insults rather than provide insight”

Lol

It's quite depressing that this is the level of stupidity we're dealing with.

No lawyer can say, in a judgement, "the law is an ass", so Lady Dorrian's role is only to attempt to interpret the law. In this case, the law (specifically the GRA) is an ass, so she has an impossible task. The law, the combination of the GRA and the EA, is both contradictory and unclear, which is why the EA needs clarification (sex is biological reality) and the GRA needs to be repealed (changing sex is not possible).

I have concerns over the Sex Matters approach and its possible unintended consequences, whilst at the same time understanding that, in terms of politics being the art of the possible, their approach has a greater chance of success in the short term. But on balance I think it is the wrong approach.

Until we remove the legal untruths that the GRA facilitates we will always be one step behind. At the same time the gender reassignment protected characteristic also needs to go to be replaced by the existing characteristic of belief. After all, if sex immutability is now a protected belief then sex mutability should not have a higher status.

I agree with this.

I don’t think my comments in that piece aged badly at all. I was clear where the ambiguity lay and wrote without accusing my interlocutor of being an ideologically motivated hack with a mediocre grasp of the law and a propensity to hurl insults rather than provide insight:

miaow

Yes I agree with you @southbiscay

The more we push for it the more normalised it gets

The idea of repealing the GRA still sits outside the Overton window, but the window has moved in that direction for many reasons to the extent that repeal no longer considered an extreme position.

It is not currently politically possible and a change to a Labour government won't help. (Indeed on a free vote there wouldn't be anything like a majority of all MPs in favour right now.). However, voices calling for repeal publicly are now important and are no longer outside the bounds of 'acceptability'. The very act of doing so will further cement and normalise the idea.

The FWS2 ruling, whilst a disaster in some ways, will help in others including strengthening the idea of GRA repeal. Never waste a crisis.

I have concerns over the Sex Matters approach and its possible unintended consequences, whilst at the same time understanding that, in terms of politics being the art of the possible, their approach has a greater chance of success in the short term. But on balance I think it is the wrong approach.

Until we remove the legal untruths that the GRA facilitates we will always be one step behind. At the same time the gender reassignment protected characteristic also needs to go to be replaced by the existing characteristic of belief. After all, if sex immutability is now a protected belief then sex mutability should not have a higher status.

This was my favourite bit

I don’t think my comments in that piece aged badly at all. I was clear where the ambiguity lay and wrote without accusing my interlocutor of being an ideologically motivated hack with a mediocre grasp of the law and a propensity to hurl insults rather than provide insight: