Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Favourite bits from the SC ruling

27 replies

Pluvia · 21/04/2025 17:37

I'm up to something that requires me to read the judgment and a couple of paragraphs have pleased me and may well come in useful over the next few weeks. Like this from paragraph 209:

.......Rather, sex has its biological meaning throughout this legislation: “woman” always and only means a biological female of any age in section 212(1). It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition; and “woman” does not mean or sometimes mean or include a male of any age who holds a GRC or exclude a female of any age who holds a GRC. To reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head and diminish the protection available to individuals and groups against discrimination on the grounds of sex.

OP posts:
AlexandraLeaving · 21/04/2025 18:21

@MarieDeGournay
Incoherent and unprincipled, I think you'll find.

MarieDeGournay · 21/04/2025 18:18

I liked
[207]..Accordingly, if a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the EA 2010, a women-only club or a club reserved for lesbians would have to admit trans women with a GRC (legal females who are biologically male and attracted to women). Evidence referred to by the second interveners suggests that this is having a chilling effect on lesbians who are no longer using lesbian-only spaces because of the presence of trans women (ie biological men who live in the female gender).

208. It is unprincipled to answer this problem by saying, as the Scottish Ministers do, that associations can restrict membership to less than 25 members so that they are not an “association” for the purposes of Part 7. It is also impractical. The Scottish Ministers also suggested in writing that the fact that the members of the association may not be attracted to a particular woman (a trans woman with a GRC who is therefore legally female) or wish to associate with her, does not diminish the protections which they are entitled to in terms of their own protected characteristic of sexual orientation. Even if this is true (which is doubtful) it does not begin to address the chilling effect a certificated sex interpretation appears to have on the ability of lesbians to associate in lesbian-only spaces. The idea that to do so they should seek instead to restrict membership on the basis of “some shared philosophical belief regarding the immutability of sex” (as Ms Crawford KC suggested in argument) demonstrates the incoherence of the Scottish Ministers’ position.

I like it because it just gets what being a lesbian means, and that the concept of male lesbians is daft; it also acknowledges that lesbians have felt excluded from places because of male 'lesbians', and that's rather sweet of them; and finally because it wraps up para 208 by witheringly referring to the Scottish Ministers' position as incoherent. Ouch😄

Swipe left for the next trending thread