For Women Scotland in Supreme Court - thread 3

@WorthyTraybake think it's partly because in some council areas, for example VAWG leads, and managers of services for abuse survivors, have made all their services 'gender based' (ie mixed sex) for anyone who identifies as a woman or non binary. The same services refuse to have any single sex groups (within the mixed sex service) for women who need them, as they say that would be discriminatory / a blanket ban against those with a 'womanly gender' or enbies. None to my knowledge ask for a GRC.

So in effect men who say they are women or enbies currently have access to 100% of abuse support services, including for rape counselling, and women (who make up most victims) have access to zero if they need single sex services.
This is 'inclusion' transactivist/ enbie style.

Thank you.

I would love for the TRAs to try and sue Duncan Bannatyne over this! Duncan has deep pockets, media connections and plenty of on camera experience. He’s utterly committed to providing single sex changing at his gym chain.

I’m picturing him on Lorraine now, asking Lozza if her BFF Eddie Izzard should be allowed to wave his wedding tackle around the women’s changing area 😆

If only Jolyon hadn’t retired from trans cases…

Thanks for this. How very pleasant to see an interview where the interviewer asks proper questions and then waits for the interviewee to answer fully. So much more informative than most interviews I've seen.

It’s because Bundlejuice promoted the idea after the jaguar case (which was a one off at employment tribunal, not precedent setting).

Edit to add link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Ltd

Thanks for this. Andrew Marr surprised this isn't being reported on more 🙄

I am baffled by any enbies thinking that they ever had protection under EA2010 or GRA on the basis of being non binary. Possibly their belief in being nb may be protected as a belief, but only if it meets Granger tests. But what do they think they need in terms of a rights, does anyone know? Just a status on paperwork, or anything material?

I agree - still catching up but I was slightly amazed that the SG advocate didn't have an immediate answer to the q about discrimination to women where a section 9 woman (bio male) wasn't discriminated against by a dodgy employer because "she" was perceived as male and a man. Perhaps she failed to provide an answer because the answer would be that, in the SG ministers' reading of the law, this would indeed put a big hole in a sex discrimination case those women might bring?

You need medical sign off, in theory, to get a GRC, and a time period to show you are serious, it only changes your legal "gender" when you get it.

On the other hand you are protected by section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 as soon as you start "transitioning". So children can claim this protection, for eg, but they cannot have a GRC until they're old enough.

People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.

The gender reassignment category is a broader category than the smaller group of people who have gender recognition certificates.

Separate and single-sex services, such as women-only counselling groups, may also be permitted, where their provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

All single sex groups and services are subject to this proportionate aim test, not just when trans people are involved. Inclusion of both sexes is the default. It's only an issue when someone challenges it in court.

LBC Andrew Marr interview with Susan Smith from FWS and Rosie Duffield about the case and the issue in general.

What's the point in checking if all the criminals don't need checking anyway?

It rathers means that Self ID already is effectively in place - with no need for checks or a diagnosis doesn't it?

Have just posted on another thread that there are 290+ trans prisoners. Only 10 have GRCs.

Upthread.

You just have to 'be going through the process' of gender reassignment.

I have no idea how this works if you just cross dressing particularly if it's part time.

Cos you actually have no intention of actually reassigning.

It rathers means that Self ID already is effectively in place - with no need for checks or a diagnosis doesn't it?

I've already quote the extract from the EA that creates this statement.

It might be worth re-reading the wording of the act to understand the legal arguements which are about how the law is written.

That is, according to the EHRC, the current starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC is able to access a women-only service; a “careful balancing exercise” then has to be conducted by the service provider to “justify excluding all trans women”.

A biological definition of sex would remove the requirement for a policy to be objectively justified (as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). This would make it “simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women.”

Sorry, but you keep posting as though all of this is new.

What the EHRC has said and also this briefing, is the law as it currently stands, but what is new and important id that the EHRC is saying this is hard to apply ie open to many interpretations.

Their recommendation to the Court that the law needs to be clarified is probably in terms of legal change the most important.

Other submissions are basically showing how hard it is to operate the law as currently written because groups are able to say that the law says this, or the law says that.

It has nothing to do with day to day logic.

It is entirely about the words as written in the EA, GRA.

People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.

Huh?

I've still not worked out how Enbies are different in anyway to EmoKids. Except for demanding they/them as part of the culture of misery.

For example, sports competition organisers are able to lawfully exclude trans people from participating in “gender-affected activity” where this is necessary to ensure fairness or the safety of other competitors.

This wording is so weird and reminds me of the more goady visitors we have to these boards. Trans people aren't commonly 'excluded' from activity but asked to participate with a particular group of team-mates or competitors.

Could be loads of female footballers who don't think they have a gender ID that matches their sex, but they're not excluded from playing football by dint of meeting some definition of "trans". Like everyone, they would play alongside other females (ideally).

I didn't think they ever stopped? Except to cry.

The non binaries must be fuming at this point.

Not read the whole report but in the summary it says the following:

People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.

There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. For example, sports competition organisers are able to lawfully exclude trans people from participating in “gender-affected activity” where this is necessary to ensure fairness or the safety of other competitors.

Separate and single-sex services, such as women-only counselling groups, may also be permitted, where their provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Interesting to see that - 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

Surely ensuring women and girls are protected from acts which may be classed as sexual offences (including vouyerism) or to protect their human rights of dignity or freedom to participate in public life due to their religion meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

Surely ensuring that women and girls have fully consented when it comes to intimate examination meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

Surely to protect lesbians who have same sex attraction meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

And yet we have nurses taking legal action against an NHS trust for one of the above scenarios.

What is a 'legitimate aim'? - the government needs to spell this out because Stonewall don't seem to be aware of the concept.

Indeed having skimmed to the relevant paragraph in the document it says simply that:

In the context of services, the EHRC argued that amending the EA 2010 would
^make it easier to offer a separate-sex or single-sex service to “biological
^
women”. That is, according to the EHRC, the current starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC is able to access a women-only service; a “careful
balancing exercise” then has to be conducted by the service provider to “justify excluding all trans women”.

A biological definition of sex would remove the requirement for a policy to be
objectively justified (as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). This would make it “simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women.”

Which is about as helpful to anyone having to make decisions as a chocolate fireguard at this point.

BUT I'd argue it does very much look like there's a certain leaning in this discussion that biological sex is a defining point that should be present. Of course the whole farce about how you exclude transwomen in settings with the whole GRC / passport ridiculousness isn't touched on at all.

The document is a commons briefing so is aimed at informing all MPs about different perspectives - but ultimately someone has had to sign off on all the wording on this.

It also references Labours position saying:

The Labour Party’s manifesto for the 2024 general election contained a commitment to “modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law”, while retaining the need for someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor before obtaining a GRC.

The level of delusion is quite something.

They are not massively bright overall.