Supreme Court For Women Scotland

Thanks for sharing @Cismyfatarse it's a powerful article. I had been optimistic about this case, if only because anything else would be lunacy, so I hope AK is doing a wee bit of scaremongering but if she's right it will be awful.

Actually the argument I recall from the Supreme Court re transmen with GRCs and abortion is that there are no restrictions on what they can legally do in the way of abortion - the Abortion Act is apparently written in terms of what a pregnant woman is/isn't allowed to do, and doesn't restrict pregnant men. That might be more scary for politicians than the fact that transmen (also) lose access to pregnancy and maternity protection!

Hat tip, then!

I meant that 😂

"with knobs on" 😆

Surely companies are itching for an opportunity to rewrite all maternity policies by expunging women and referring only to “pregnant people “ or “birthing bodies”.

They already have.

@AshKeys this is really what has led to a lot of the issues. The SS carve outs are unworkable if „privacy“ is allowed to be used in this way.

You know the NHS would fix this overnight by making abortion care open to people or gestators.

Surely companies are itching for an opportunity to rewrite all maternity policies by expunging women and referring only to “pregnant people “ or “birthing bodies”.

Yes if you followed the arguments in detail at the Supreme Court that if a GRC gives you the protection of the characteristic of sex, the very noticeable outcome is that all women lose be they lesbian straight or transgender.

So i cannot see how FWS could possibly lose.

That's nuts!

I'm actually trying to figure out what benefits a GRC should bring to someone should it mean that a Transwoman can turn up at work in a dress & lippy so essentially exceptions on the dress codes that say Men aren't allowed makeup or earrings.

But for all other purposes they are male and should be treated as such

If a transman with a GRC becomes a man for all legal purposes then they lose access to abortion care and have no protection from discrimination based on pregnancy or maternity status. Fingers crossed sanity prevails 🤞

But what about the priests and the first born noblemen!!??

We could all self id as men on mass like man Friday with knobs on.

Since so many of us dress as men, time it was sauce for the goose? (I think yhe ruling will go against women. And we must post that paragraph from the Times article EVERYWHERE)

Have a look at the Supreme Court's Twitter page, they announce on Thursdays the decisions to be read out in court the following Wednesday. So I guess we'll get 6 days advance notice!
x.com/UKSupremeCourt

There's a general election next year in Wales. 11 of the 60 MSs are standing down including Mark Drakeford and Jane Hutt, two of the worst TRAs. The Welsh Assembly is increasing number to 90 and the current government under Eluned Morgan is almost imperceptibly pulling back from the trans agenda because they know it's toxic for them. Welsh Labour is terrified of Reform and knows that if it doesn't drop all the trans nonsense it'll be giving away winnable seats. Like Labour in Westminster, I think a decision has been taken to slowly back away from GI whenever possible. Analiese Dodds (TRA) has been replaced by Jacqui Smith who's GC. I think there'll be much more of this. The big issue will be rooting out transactivism behind the scenes, but with more, bolder pro-women's rights people in position I hope it can be identified and destroyed before it gets a chance to do any more damage.

I assumed it would be in person.

I just found this: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment
saying that judgements are usually handed down in person at 9:45 on Wednesdays, and announced a week in advance - with nothing upcoming in the next week :-( So does that mean we have to wait at least another week, in fact? OTOH, they do have an exceptional-cases getout, and the only judgements on that page seem to have been handed down yesterday, i.e. Thursday not Wednesday, so shrug?

The EA is about saying there are "legal" women for various purposes and actually women who are allowed under the SSE to only be biological women.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. We don't know which interpretation of the EA is correct until the Supreme Court hands down its judgment.

And if it is deemed there are "legal" women this does not mean single-sex exceptions can be used to provide services only to biological women. Even if we can agree on how the exceptions work to keep men with GRCs out, there is absolutely no mechanism in the EA to keep women with GRCs in. Hence, the whole argument about how they can possibly access pregnancy and maternity provisions.

Yes, @AshKeys it's a total shitshow.

Which is that as written the sex class of women are the only protected characteristic who have to allow those who aren't part of the that sex class to idenditify into it.

This is not true. Women can also identify into the sex class of ‘men’ using a GRC - which means gay men cannot have clubs without women too. And there is the complete mess of women then not being protected under the PC of pregnancy and maternity unless the word woman is taken to mean different things in different parts of the act.

This. But also ‘gender reassignment’ removed as a protected characteristic.

Yes, that too. The protection from discrimination could come under belief, maybe.

"A third consequence is that it makes it impossible for lesbians to form associations organised groups of at least 25 members that are open only to females. It requires such associations to admit males with GRCs who are attracted to women. Whatever the law says, for many lesbians these are simply heterosexual men."

I think Akua Reindorf KC, lesbian barrister specialising in equality law, probably has a fairly good grasp of the law around clubs and associations in the EA 2010 vis a vis sexual orientation/sex, and I'd be inclined to take her opinion (and that of both sides' legal teams in the Supreme Court case, where this issue was discussed) as holding more weight than a vague reference to a discussion on Facebook.

This. But also ‘gender reassignment’ removed as a protected characteristic.