Supreme Court For Women Scotland

This is interesting, thanks for sharing. I am trying to read between the lines now to see if it's going to be good or bad news.

For those asking how she knows the decision is imminent, counsel involved in a case get a tip off that a judgment is about to come out. After that, they are sent a draft version of the judgment which is subject to an embargo, and they take a look at it to make sure there are no glaring errors which need to be corrected before it is handed down. They are under very strict rules not to say anything about what the judgment contains (if you leak a judgment before it is handed down you can get in trouble with the Bar regulator and it might possibly be a contempt), but they are allowed to indicate that the judgment is about to come out.

Thanks for sharing OP, really excellent article that says exactly how it is for lesbians.

This judgment will be an important one.

But if those who might have voted Conservative decide that the Tories are a busted flush and vote Reform, and those who might have voted for Labour are pissed off over gender woo or the WFA or other policies and actions, and also vote Reform, the picture will be different next time round.

Excellent article, thank you for sharing.

There are a lot of seats that Labour only won because Reform split the vote.

I also don't think this is a fringe issue that will only play to the Reform crowd. I think even the dumb ass be-kind sheeple might go, what now? when this is all laid out.

This is where creating a legal fiction gets you, to a place where 2 men, with 2 bits of paper can be lesbians. The same two men, without the bits of paper, are gay men. The article lays this madness out I think better than anything I have seen.

I am not sure what the best outcome is here. That GRCs do not qualify men to use all women's services and spaces, or that the law is, a man with a GRC is a woman for all intents and purposes but this is clearly bonkers and we need to go back and change the legislation so that is doesn't create this madness.

I feel very worried about this.

One of the Supreme Court judges said something like "Whatever we decide has to be workable in practice".

So surely the ruling can't be "Males can go in female spaces if they have a GRC, but no-one can ask to see the GRC" as that would not be workable in practice. It would be like saying you need a passport to get on a plane, but no-one can ask to see the passport.

I think Labour are very worried about Reform. They may have a huge majority but lots of individual seats were very close. In four years people will have forgotten the shitshow of Tory rule but will remember the winter fuel allowance being removed from lots of people on low incomes.

Excellent article.

Holy fuck, I can't believe this is the world we now live in.

My nightmare is that the issue goes back to the legislature and the government takes the opportunity to reform/"modernise" the EA by replacing GR with Gender Identity or adding GI to the meaning of Sex, etc, etc.

ETA: yes, it would be insane, but they are all in on this and they may think they have time to bring public opinion round to it after the fact.

Sadly Labour are not worried enough yet. They have four years and a huge majority to do a lot of damage first.

Sadly, that's very true. However it looks like they are about to launch a whole load of cuts to benefits too. They are alienating their traditional support.

Sadly Labour are not worried enough yet. They have four years and a huge majority to do a lot of damage first.

I think we are getting towards the end of the expected timeframe for the ruling, so it must be imminent now.

I agree. Reform are all over this, and Labour are as worried about losing seats to Reform as they are to the Tories now. They will fudge this issue at their peril.

I didn’t read the case but did they also argue human rights? Article 14 of the European Convention on Human rights prohibits discrimination in accessing rights on the basis of sex or other status. How can that hold if the GRC makes men legally women under the equality act? Even if they steal our words, then surely women are discriminated against under ‘other status’ ie our biology including by the theft of our words?

Is there any evidence that the Supreme Court is about to issue its ruling? Does Akua know something the rest of us don't?

I definitely agree that if it's thrown back to the government, it will be harder for them to stick nothing to see here.

The Telegraph/IPSOS ruling that makes in sport can be referred to as males is helpful. Other newspapers will either go to IPSOS with their own submissions or publish anyway and wait to be damned. There is nothing so successful at getting the media on side as telling them no.

The SP case has also had wider recognition and not only is there more to come, but there is a queue of other cases to raise awareness further. Less captured reporting, will again be helpful.

If the Supreme Court concludes anything other than a woman in law is the biological variety, the press will be all over it and it will be a massive talking point everywhere. The LP can't hold the traditional red/blue wall if they deny biology. Outside metropolitan bubbles, people simply don't buy it.

And much as I hate to say it, the Trump factor comes into play too. Starmer won't want Trump/Musk/Vance to be able to say that they don't know what a woman is in the UK.

Excellent article from Akua Reindorf.

I am an optimist and I think the SC will rule in FWS's favour.

This is my guess too. The government might be told to lay an amendment allowing lesbian associations, which as Akua says is a massive problem with the current law. But I don't think they'll do more unless really forced to.

That’s 100% the problem. They’re not been asked if it’s a good or bad law, they’re being asked to rule on the law as it stands

I fully expect them to throw it back to the government with a recommendation for clarity

which the government will do nothing about leaving it up to individuals to keep bringing cases

Should they rule that we are now men, I wonder if the Justices will say the law is an ass (they have no choice) and refer back to the government to rectify. Is that a possibility?

No, Akua wouldn't be allowed to hint at the outcome, but as previous posters have said, this was basically the EHRC's position (and not an unreasonable one, in terms of legislative interpretation).

Will be fascinating to see how the government responds to the judgment (probably very weakly).

Part of the point being: up to now, it's been possible for politicians to fob us off as they have done repeatedly, when asked to clarify the EA, by saying the law is already clear (with the implication that it already means bio sex, except that then there are others claiming that of course it doesn't, which is how we got here...). Whatever the judgement is, they won't be able to do that any more. Either the judgement will say the law isn't clear, or it will have been made clear in our favour, or it will be clearly against us and we'll be able to hold politicians' feet to the fire concerning whether they agree with it and if so why we should vote for them.