Scottish Trans Alliance to challenge For Women Scotland judicial review

[WhatsthetruthRuth]

I see that the previous post with this title has been deleted because it was deemed to be ‘fundraising’ and broke MN Guidelines against this. Can this be a thread where we can discuss the total fucking injustice of having a Scottish Government funded body with Scottish Government funded lawyers opposing a grass roots Women’s organisation who wish to oppose the Scottish Government’s attempts to redefine the word ‘woman’. Please?

I think it needs discussing. It’s too important. And let’s not have any mention or attempt to talk about raising any funds for any organisation otherwise this will disappear too

Bravo Susan. Whatever the result this was so important to do.

That's exactly what it is. TRAs don't want mixed sex. What's the point of it?

The old school TRAs don’t want mixed sex but the young ‘uns do, and they are running amok 😂

A Facebook group for women I’ve been a member of for since it’s inception 5 years ago, that has always been transwoman inclusive has recently been attacked for ‘exclusive language’ by ‘non binary AFAB people’.

Seeing as there is no way to describe a womens’ group that is inclusive of transwomen and female NBs (it either has to be for ‘women identified’ people or ‘female people, regardless of how they identify’) and there is an absolute army of trans
identifying teens online, the whole thing is about to fracture right down the middle. The late transitioning MtFs who used to run things are being dismissed as gammony boomers by the new woke enby army.
It’s really peculiar to witness.

Thank you all. Whichever way it goes, we have got SG to make some interesting admissions - although it is an expensive way to make a gov truthful and accountable!

Re BBC - the BBC Scotland reporting was balanced, so it was disappointing, to say the least, to see the two inaccurate headlines on the webpage. Really shoddy as this measure was never supposed to be about trans rights but women's representation (which was the entire point of the case!). If anyone feels moved to complain, please do!

Oh, and I'm on the and about to move on to . Cheers!

Cheers to you!

Thank you Susan

The Times today, while the case was still being heard. Sorry I don't have a sharetoken.

'Making definition of women trans-inclusive is unlawful, court told'

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/making-definition-of-women-trans-inclusive-is-unlawful-court-told-qpgmh8379

Making definition of women trans-inclusive is unlawful, court told'

It already includes half the world’s adult population FFS.

Making the definition of 'woman' male inclusive.

That is what it actually means.

That making 'woman' a mixed-sex term is not helpful to the half of the human race who are female.

And are about to be left with any word with which they are allowed to define themselves, in case male people feel left out.

Enjoy the and Susan and thanks so much for your determined, unrelenting graft on this - bloody amazing!!

We will the word female - but how to differentiate us from other forms of female? it means that bitches, cows, hens, ewes, sows etc have more respect in the English language then the adult human female.

Thank you SusanSmithFWS for everything you have done, you have taken the ScotGovt policy out of the shadows and exposed what they are up to. (btw the BBC takes complaints seriously so the more people who do so and ask for a reply the better, it's a total pain in the arse for the news editors)

They didn't even stop at the word woman (or give a primary definition of women as adult human females). They simply moved straight onto males who identify as trans and declared that they can become female.

“woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female. [my emphasis]

This is the only definition of women in a law that seeks to be all about women that mattered to the Scottish Government.

As for the repeated claim by the Scottish Government that this redefinition of woman in conflict with the Equality Act is only intended to apply to this law and not set a precedent, we've already seen various organisations argue that because this law redefines women in this way, this now applies elsewhere in Scotland. To the best of my knowledge, to date the Scottish Government has not objected to even one of these claims of precedent.

Sharetoken:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b67525aa-513e-11eb-ad71-ea6bb4a570af?shareToken=41ca2685635478548dd849e937336af0

I see Disgusted got in there with the first comment.

Thanks for the sharetoken Igneococcus
Can't access the comments - is that just me?

There is only one comment, from Disgusted of Manchester saying that For Women Scotland is a notorious hateful group. That was posted 20 h ago, no recommends, no further comments.

Ah! They make their points so eloquently I feel. I'm certainly convinced.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Making the definition of 'woman' male inclusive.

That is what it actually means.

Yes, exactly. I wish this would be spelled out very clearly.

'Mr O'Neill also said the case law on sex discrimination defined women on the basis of unique biological features - such as fertility.'

From the BBC.

This is the for women lawyer? I imagine that's been paraphrased rather heavily?

I can't imagine that the for women lawyer is saying that the term woman only applies to fertile females :/

That's where the discussion is happening today in the Times, not sure if it's been linked in another thread yet:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3aafc2ae-5107-11eb-9824-61a56b05e43d?shareToken=a0b3c9f75dae5dfd226c8a1377abb78d

@CharlieParley

They didn't even stop at the word woman (or give a primary definition of women as adult human females). They simply moved straight onto males who identify as trans and declared that they can become female.

“woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female. [my emphasis]

This is the only definition of women in a law that seeks to be all about women that mattered to the Scottish Government.

As for the repeated claim by the Scottish Government that this redefinition of woman in conflict with the Equality Act is only intended to apply to this law and not set a precedent, we've already seen various organisations argue that because this law redefines women in this way, this now applies elsewhere in Scotland. To the best of my knowledge, to date the Scottish Government has not objected to even one of these claims of precedent.

Also explains why so many were so, so desperate to retain "gender" in the Forensic Medical Services Bill, rather than sex. Because that really is (we know now) the first and ONLY piece of legislation that makes the distinction between TW and women, and as Scot Gov QC said today, Scot Gov will ways consider a TW a woman unless there is specific legislation which prohibits it.

And there wasn't any.

But now there is.

❤ Johann Lamont.

The definition has already be used in a 2nd bill, at the Scotland suggestion of Engender Scottish National Investment Bank Bill

So it's moving through other legislation already, in contrast to ScotGov's WC's claim its limited to the GRPB bill only.

@SusanSmithFWS It would be useful to pay close attention to submissions & committee attendance by the main 'professional feminist' orgs - to keep an eye on where else this could appear. The only way I think this can be avoided is if the judgement prohibits the use of the definition elsewhere (and I doubt that would happen).

Wrong pic! Sorry