Rape Crisis Legal Case - Court Date!

Done. Thank you and best of luck Sarah.

Done and bumping (bumped another thread too) Many thanks @YankeeDad It's been such a long time and Sarah's being so determined to keep going.

Thanks for the nudge.

Done! Thanks for the nudge

Thanks for the reminder. I've nudged a couple of other relevant threads.

Thanks for your generosity! I've donated before but have bunged in a bit more 🙂

Bump for traffic.

I can see that only £195 have been contributed to the Crowdfunder for "Sarah" 's legal expenses since I posted this. To show that this matching offer is real, I have just pledged £195 (anonymously but with mention of Mumsnet), and you can see that contribution in the comments if you visit the crowdfunding page.

However, I offered up to £2,500, and tbh I was hoping to see that amount matched or even exceeded.

If you do support Sarah's court case, but for some reason, you do not want your contribution to be doubled by me, then please wait until tomorrow and then contribute.

However, if you both support her court case and you also want your contribution to be doubled by me in order to have a greater impact, then please make a contribution today and I will match it up to the previously mentioned cap.

.

@IwantToRetire if that was the case, the Supreme Court finding would have gone the other way. The Supreme Court decided that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act was always intended to refer to biological sex. The single sex exceptions apply to all members of the opposite sex, not solely those who identify as “trans”. So you’ve misunderstood, I’m afraid.

"In some instances this could include trans women and in some instances not, as allowed by the law as written.
And as I keep explaining, whether you like it or not, nobody was ignorant of the law. They were just following the law as at that time they were told what it was."

This isn't right. Stonewall and their ilk advised based on what they wanted the law to be, but the law was and is the law. The SC judgement has not changed the law. The whole point of the SC judgement was determining what the EA2010 meant all along. The SC judgement has merely asserted that it was never the case that the EA2010 allowed men with the PC of GR to use services and provisions which were female only. The single sex exception (not exemption!) always was and continues to be based on actual sex. It has never been lawful to include men with the PC of GR when using a SSE exception to provide female only provisions.

Please stop saying your misinformation about the SSE exemptions.

If you read the description of the SSE as published on the Parliament web site, it is what I said. It was specifically written so that even if a service was said to be women only "legal women" ie men with a GRC could be excluded. It is the only occassion on which a GRC is invalid.

So how you can think it has anything to do with mixed sex I cant understand.

This was also spelt out clearly about how to advertise vacancies that were said to be women only. In some instances this could include trans women and in some instances not, as allowed by the law as written.

And as I keep explaining, whether you like it or not, nobody was ignorant of the law. They were just following the law as at that time they were told what it was.

In fact you arguement is so bizarre as it attempt so say Labour didn't set out to undermine the word sex by creating both a "legal sex" and an actual sex.

It has nothing to do with what anyone of us think is logical it is about the intention of those who wrote the law.

Or do you think Labour really didn't intend TW to be equal to actual women.

Very strange position for someone on FWR!

You can only sue people/organisations for things that have happened. You can't just bring a case against an organisation because you think they need to improve how they work. There has to have been an incident, - that you were affected by - or you have no standing to bring a case. (If that weren't so, half this board would be claimants in the case, rather than simply contributing to the crowdfunder.)

So Sarah's case is about how they treated her when she tried to use their service.

She might want the result to be a change in future practice, but that isn't the charge.

That sounds like such a horrible experience for you, @SwordOfOmens And RedTent's response is truly sick. It makes me feel absolute rage to think of the privileged, self righteous staff there thinking that raped women ought to be shamed or coerced into validating men!

The reactions of other people and organisations to the victim, after the rape, are so hugely crucial in determining how deep the trauma will run. We always teach children "look for all the helpers" when trying to help them process the aftermath of large scale traumatic events in the news. But when it's raped women.... Look for all the helpers? They're sat in that office identifying as a good person whilst calling me a bigot, thanks.

Again apologies if I’m being thick but what is the relevance of what happened in the past, I thought Sarah was seeking to change things going forward? She isn’t seeking damages is she?

@NoBinturongsHereMate Spot on

in some instance a man with a GRC was a "legal woman". Which is why the act included the single sex exemptions to allow for genuinely women only services.

As has been explained several times, that's not what the SSEs are. They allow single sex rather than mixed sex provision. 'Mixed' not being 'women plus men with a GRC', not 'women plus men who say they are women', but 'women plus all men'.

The default is 'all men' plus 'all women'. The SSE allows exclusion of one of those 2 categories.

Not sure that you can retrospectively apply a clarification of a law if up until the date of the clarification it was thought to be something else.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

In order to help ensure this gets funded properly, I will personally match all donations through the end of the Bank Holiday weekend, up to £2,500.

In order to do this without requiring any sort of interaction or response from anyone, I will just watch the total on the Crowdfunder. The current total is £102,748 (with a fundraising target of £150,000). If the total reaches £105,248 or more by the end of Monday, then I will personally donate £2,500, If the total is less, I will match whatever increase there has been over and above £102,748.

I am of course hoping Sarah will win, and I am sure they will given the grounds on which they using. But:

No the Supreme Court said it has always been that sex means biological sex. So as of 2010

They may have said that but the problem is that up until the point they said that it had been widely interpreted legally and acted on that in some instance a man with a GRC was a "legal woman". Which is why the act included the single sex exemptions to allow for genuinely women only services. Which is why it was assumed you had to advertised services as being operated under the SSE.

Now though since the ruling, the court has clarified that in using the word sex whatever service it is means a biological fact.

Not sure that you can retrospectively apply a clarification of a law if up until the date of the clarification it was thought to be something else.

So prior to the clarification the issue was were services advertised correctly as being under the SSE. And separately, with the law as it was, was it discriminatory not to provide women only (biological) services and if they weren't whose is responsible for that. The actual service provider or those who contracted the service, the funders. And I sure other more legally intricate arguements.

100% behind you Sarah, the entire concept so simple and logical - let’s hope the Court agrees!

No the Supreme Court said it has always been that sex means biological sex. So as of 2010

from what I have read Sarah this is now a Sam dunk case as the service was not truthful to you when they said it was a women only group …. End of really

Hello again @IamSarah !

Just a quick note to say your case is mentioned in this article which I started a thread about partly because it is confusing to read.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5324687-domestic-violence-shelters-defy-trans-court-ruling-telegraph-article

Just so that you know.

@IamSarah

Just to let you know that Rape Crisis England and Wales has referred to your case in their response to the Suprememe Court ruling.

Their statement is here https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/rape-crisis-responds-to-the-supreme-court-judgement/ and the reference to your case is in their longer statement with link in that statement.

I must admit I didn't thinks Survivors Network was part of the RCEW.

But as one of the things they say about their members is that they have to advertise their services clearly in relation to sex, that might be something to look at.

My understanding is that organisations working on the previous misinterpretations of the EA were not acting lawfully, even though they didn't know at the time. I don't know whether the fact the courts were getting the law wrong too will be a defence against claims of discrimination as a result. I presume not, otherwise case law would never develop.

No, this ruling is clear that the EA2010 always meant biological sex, that this was the intention of the act all along (thus, any rulings made on a different interpretation should now be appealable).

It's also not necessary to explicitly state that you are using the SSEs under the act (though I believe it is necessary to state for job adverts where there is an occupational requirement).