In quite the turnaround Scottish Labour say the support Sandie Peggie, and would not support the GRR bill "knowing what they know now"!

The Murray Blackburn Mackenzie briefing notes say

I think that MBM should read the briefing notes from the EHRC which clearly lays out how the law works now.

It is also in Lady Haldanes ruling.

The word is "proportionate".

That is the insult. That women should have to justify that it is proportionate what has for all time been the natural way of organisting.

Lady Haldane's ruling did not change the law as it currently exists and works.

The problem isn't that women's groups dont feel able to use the SSE, the threat if there is one is that activists might want to try and make a challenge for political reasons.

I am not supporting the current law - which is a total insult to women - but as it is it allows for single sex services.

The problem is the culture we now have thanks to Stonewall and others who have created the impression the trans women should have more rights than biological women.

It is far more, as this thread's subject shows, that far too many institutions eg the NHS have been transed.

Who made these organisation thinks they should have mixed gender toilets etc.. Who made them think they couldn't implement the SSE for changing rooms. Trans activists.

Unfortunately even though we know a few brave women have used the law to challenge these organisations, the real issue is how earily these organisation where persuaded men who say they are women should be listened to and actual women shouldn't.

The effectiveness of trans activismover the past few decades is the problem.

And even if the law was changed I suspect many organisation will still offer mixed sex toilets etc., because unfortunately trans culture is built on the much older more entrenched misogyny of MRAs.

And lets face it women aren't important.

At the moment many, many women's services are facing closure because of cuts to local government. And in terms of money continuing to have a local refuge or RCC for women is not thought to be a priority.

The exceptions in the GRA allow exclusion. They don't mandate it.

The H&S regs for employers are mandatory, which is why there is no doubt that Dr Upton should be excluded from changing room if no GRC, regardless of NHS Fife internal policy.

However, with a GRC, it would be NHS Fife's responsibility to show that exclusion were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and there is currently no case law or legislation that demonstrates a requirement to do that.

The Murray Blackburn Mackenzie briefing notes say

"What are the risks if For Women Scotland lose their appeal?

If the UK Supreme Court upholds the judgment that acquiring a GRC changes someone’s sex under the EqA, but rejects the Scottish Court’s attempt to fudge this in an undefined way, the risks below are anticipated.

The delivery of single-sex services and spaces will be further threatened. Men who have acquired a GRC deeming them female will have a presumptive right of access to single-sex spaces and services for woman, and to apply for female-only jobs.

The EqA permits single-sex services to exclude a person with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”, if an additional legal test is met. In principle, this could be used to exclude men who have acquired a GRC deeming them female from women-only services, spaces, and jobs.

However, previous Commons committee inquiries and government consultations on gender recognition reform have found that providers are already worried about the risk of getting this test wrong and falling foul of the law, making them reluctant to use it, due to the risk of a legal challenge.

A failure to provide reliable single-sex services for survivors of male violence is already putting the UK at risk of breaching its obligations under the Istanbul convention."

UK Labour have messed up so badly that Scottish Labour has plummeted in the polls. The worst outcome of that would be to hand the SNP yet another term.

Does Scottish Labour now accept that it's the lack of clarity in existing legislation that is the problem?

No - they are saying what the Labour Party is saying.

That the SSE are sufficient protection for biological women.

And is what they said in the article I posted a link to.

Although no part of Labour have said what they will do is the FWS JR in some way says the SSE are not enough and give biological women lesser right, and so women to be acknowledged as a biological reality in the EA.

ie reverse the SSE would be about the very few occassion when a man with a GRC is a "woman".

Are Judges influenced by the impact on politicians / political parties of supporting a change to the law that will undermine the rights of a strand of society they have been ingratiating themselves with for years, or is it decades. ie what would the reaction be to a court ruling that said sex in the EA means biology. What happens to all the campaigns and policy guidelines that have been spread by Stonewall that TW are the same as biological women.

Yes indeed, and I feel very sorry for the poor politicians who must be deafened by the sound of so many pigeons coming home to roost. 😂

they will need to support changes to legislation that will mandate exclusion of trans women with GRCs in some cases.

That already exists.

That is why Labour is so smug. As they feel they have adequately provided for biological women.

They are the ones who wrote the SSE and think it is acceptable to tell biological women they have to show why it is proportionate for them to have Single Sex Services.

Women as a sex are the only protected characteristic who have had their characteristic demoted in relation to someone said by a certificate to be something they physically aren't. This erosion of the concept of a protected characterisic is not and would never be accepted in relation say to race or disability.

Isn't Labour saying they wouldn't now support the Bill a bit neither here nor there? AIUI, they are talking about Sturgeon's aborted Bill which was blocked by Westminster. So that's not on the statute book now, and has no effect on the situation Sandie Peggie and others find themselves in. Does Scottish Labour now accept that it's the lack of clarity in existing legislation that is the problem?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

I'm just looking at this

"Issue

Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)? "

and this

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2024/11/19/briefing-note-for-women-scotland-vs-the-scottish-ministers-uk-supreme-court-26-27-november-2024/#:~:text=For%20Women%20Scotland%20(FWS)%20unsuccessfully,person's%20sex%20under%20the%20EqA.

But my main point is that depending on the Supreme Court's decision, if Scottish Labour mean what they say about protecting access to services on the basis of biological sex, they will need to support changes to legislation that will mandate exclusion of trans women with GRCs in some cases.

Dr Upton has fucked up majorly.
If I wasn't so angry I'd be thanking him.

I think most people took one look at his smug face and went "most vulnerable, my arse"

No they haven't changed their policy and yes a man could be the women's officer again

I find their faux handwringing a bit nauseating, ‘how could we have known this would happen’ they snivel, they did bloody know, because women everywhere told them it would happen, but not only did they refuse to listen they labelled us bigots, transphobes and terfs.
I have always taken my voting rights very seriously, but how on earth women are supposed to have any faith in ANY politicians for the foreseeable future I don’t know, charlatans and liars the lot of them.

For those who cant access X and aren't in a position to listen to a video this is an article (that may or may not) cover the position now being presented.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,we-support-sandie-peggie-and-would-vote-against-gender-reforms-scottish-labour-leaders-say

Waitin for Pam Duncan-Glancy to weigh in on this.

1). they will protect single sex spaces on the basis of biological sex
2). the equality act is very clear.
But sex in the equality act isn't clear, which is why we are awaiting judgement on the For Women Scotland case.

Sex in the EA is clear, because as written the EA says there are 2 classes of women, ie "legal women" men with a GRC and biological women who (if they are very good) are allowed Single Sex Exemptions.

The FWS case is whether the priority given to "legal" women is discriminatory to biological women who as the law is currenlty writen have fewer rights that legal women.

I despise every last one of them.

Eh ?

<reads op again>

YES

Oh hell yes. This is the line in the sand and he honestly thought he could 'be kind' the nation into thinking he's a biological female.

Own goal to end all own goal.

Dr Upton has fucked up majorly.
If I wasn't so angry I'd be thanking him.

I agree. I am also angry about the money being spent. On the other hand, if these cases weren't coming to court and going against the GI industry and downright wrong work policies, we wouldn't know about them and the harms would still continue. So perhaps it will be money well spent.

Some handy transcripts from today:

Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con)
Sandie Peggie, who has been a national health service nurse for 30 years, spoke up for her sex-based rights in her workplace because she did not want to share a changing facility with a biological male. However, in doing so, she is being treated as the perpetrator, not the victim.
I know that the Presiding Officer considers this case to be sub judice. Nothing I say here today will prejudice any live proceedings, because at the heart of this case are the policies of the Scottish National Party Government.
Presiding Officer, we need a ministerial statement on public sector workers and single-sex spaces. I am grateful to the Minister for Parliamentary Business for being open, despite the late notice, to considering that request.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
The protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex is a matter of law—it is in the Equality Act 2010. In supporting the amendment calling for a statement, I ask whether Tess White agrees with me that the Scottish Government and its agencies are not above the law.

Tess White
I thank Jackie Baillie, and I completely agree with her that the Scottish Government and its agencies are not above the law.
The situation that has arisen in NHS Fife speaks volumes about what is happening behind closed doors in Scotland’s public sector under the SNP Government. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon’s self-identification policy has binned the rights of biologically female employees to access single-sex spaces. Taxpayers’ money is being used to cover legal costs to defend a public body’s gender policy, but there is no transparency over the cost to the public purse because the health board involved will not disclose that information. That is simply not acceptable, especially when the health service is in crisis and budgets are being squeezed.
It has been reported that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, was made aware in June last year of the situation in NHS Fife and the legal implications of it. We need clarity over Neil Gray’s involvement or lack thereof.
The public interest in the issue is huge. It has been covered extensively in the press and MSPs have been contacted by constituents with legitimate questions and concerns, and yet we have not been able to bring those questions to the chamber. Topical questions, First Minister’s questions and urgent questions that have been lodged on the issue have not been selected. Meanwhile, our colleagues in Westminster have been able to raise it. It is deeply disappointing that, once again, this Parliament cannot discharge its duties to the public because members do not have parliamentary privilege.
Women are watching today. The public has had enough of the recent abdication, obfuscation and moral cowardice from the Government, and we are only going to see more witch hunts at the public’s expense if we do not get clarity on the Scottish Government’s position. I urge members to support my amendment.

Yes it is the Scottish Labour Conference this weekend and Labour Women's Declaration already has an event and stall not for the first time. I think there are going to be a lot of people switching sides with the fallout from Upton hitting home and this announcement is going to play a part.

Yes Labour are massive hypocrites, we always call that out. However we also need to move forward. See the Unison thread for what TAs are doing to crush women's voices in the biggest union in the UK right now.

If we want to stop this stuff we need support from Labour. We need Labour to push back otherwise the Uptons win.

A bunch of people in Labour as the recent internal briefings from Labour insiders are indicating many now know gender stuff is not only pointless, but more to the point electorally disastrous.

The Scottish elections are in 2026 and Labour are doing very badly gender is one of the weapons they want to use to hammer the SNP/Greens/Lib Dems.

Also with the arrival of Labour LGB the gender wars in Labour are kicking up a huge notch see this thread for details. It is going to get worse.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276330-labour-lgb-group-launch-drama-ensues

So yes they are bunch of muppets, the history will show that, but we need to bank that win and move on to the next fight. We have to stop the witch trials.

We take back Scottish Labour - Wales has to be next!

I'd say it's more powerful as not everyone can picture themselves in prison being confronted by a man and others won't care as they have no/little compassion for prisoners. However everyone can see this happening at their work or as a patient in hospital especially with Dr Upton saying that he'd treat a patient who asked for a female dr.
This is a whole new ball game, dr Upton has got on a global stage with a loud speaker and said the quite part out loud

Whatever did happen to LGBT+ Scottish Labour?

All seems to have ground to a halt in 2023.

And also, if they're not dodgy, women still don't want to take their clothes off in front of them