For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

@SweetPetrichor

Good. Reading their manifesto represents this as a disgusting waste of money. Don’t feel sorry for all Scottish women. I’m proud to stand with equality for all, not just for me.

Couldn’t agree more @SweetPetrichor! “Equality for all, not just me” couldn’t have been put better.

Glad to see this appeal, will get out the shovel.

Have just donated to the appeal.

Scottish here and worried by the day about this sort of thing.

@OhHolyJesus

Appeal is to go ahead!

Update on Stop the Scottish Government redefining "woman" to include men

Having spoken to our lawyers and considered the financial implications and the appetite for this case, we have decided that we will appeal the decision on the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act. Our legal team is confident that the judgement is legally challengeable.
We have already seen this law cited by lobbyists hoping to roll back women's rights, and we have seen an MP claim that she would have no issue with a “gender balanced” board made up of 50% men and 50% transwomen. The Scottish Government also take the view that men who self-identify as women, are women - and this will be the basis of future policies. Therefore, we feel we have a duty to Scottish women to continue to fight: we cannot leave this law on the statute books to the detriment of women.
We would rather we did not have to seek redress from the courts, but as the Scottish Government continues to refuse to engage with women, we have little choice. Unchallenged, we feel this would only embolden those who wish to undermine Equality Act 2010 - we understand that the Scottish Green Party are now demanding the adoption of the flawed Yogyakarta Principles into Scots Law.
A reclaiming motion was formally marked on 9th April and we will leave open our fundraiser. Thank you so much for your support thus far, we cannot do this without you.

Same legal team that were confident first time roud?

I thought you were a QC? Do you not understand the concept of either accepting a judgement or appealing if there's sufficient grounds?

I'm sure you also presented fairly confidently at Allison Bailey's case hearing (I'm sure you'll remind me of the correct terminology), on behalf of Stonewall I think, that you could get her case thrown out. Were you confident then? Do you concede now you're arguments didn't stack up or would you make the same arguments again if you had the chance?

Gets popcorn.
for you Shadowy

“I am a feminist to my fingertips, and nothing in what we have proposed nothing in what we are proposing in any way diminishes, or removes the protections that women currently have under the Equality Act and I think that is a really important point to make...”

☝️ Sturgeon's comments on SNP manifesto pledge to push through GRA reform. Maybe she's unaware of the legal case FWS are fighting. 😒

Maybe she's unaware of the legal case FWS are fighting. 😒

Or what feminist means, or what fingertips are, or what 'really important points' are. 🙄

@TheShadowyFeminist

I thought you were a QC? Do you not understand the concept of either accepting a judgement or appealing if there's sufficient grounds?

I'm sure you also presented fairly confidently at Allison Bailey's case hearing (I'm sure you'll remind me of the correct terminology), on behalf of Stonewall I think, that you could get her case thrown out. Were you confident then? Do you concede now you're arguments didn't stack up or would you make the same arguments again if you had the chance?

I dont comment publicly about cases I am involved in until they are over for somewhat obvious reasons.

The Scottish judgment looks pretty soundly based to me.

The Scottish judgment looks pretty soundly based to me.

Based on the miracle of man becoming woman on the gas statement?

Wow. Good to know it was only that simple I could have bypassed 7 years of carrying, labouring, birthing and breastfeeding three children as opposed to DH’s minimal contribution in time and effort...

The Scottish judgment looks pretty soundly based to me.

Go on, give us your expert analysis on why that is. We know you really want to.

@UppityPuppity

The Scottish judgment looks pretty soundly based to me.

Based on the miracle of man becoming woman on the gas statement?

Wow. Good to know it was only that simple I could have bypassed 7 years of carrying, labouring, birthing and breastfeeding three children as opposed to DH’s minimal contribution in time and effort...

No. Based on the relevant law as it has developed over the last 50 plus years.

The Scottish judgment looks pretty soundly based to me.
Good-oh, clearly other qualified people disagree with your totally unbiased personal assessment.

Backing FWS to the hilt

Are you a double silk Robin? I think women would prefer to rely on the expertise of a QC who is an expert in Scots law.

@BetsyM00

Are you a double silk Robin? I think women would prefer to rely on the expertise of a QC who is an expert in Scots law.

Very little Scots law involved - and yes, I do practise in Scotland as well as England and Wales. And I have more than a passing interest in this area of law - you will be able to read about that soon.

A Silk who starts his submissions by suggesting that s212 of the EqA helps (note how that was ignored by the judge) isnt really taking the argument forward, IMHO

But time will tell.

For law to work and be upheld it needs to reflect the principles of its society , or you need to be in a strongly controlled state Not a democracy

A Silk who starts his submissions by suggesting that s212 of the EqA helps (note how that was ignored by the judge) isnt really taking the argument forward, IMHO

Given that s212 states the definition of woman as "a female of any age" it seems quite relevant, IMHO. It was not ignored by the judge at all, but, even if you think it was, then that would make it a good point to challenge in the reclaiming motion.

Perhaps you can appreciate that women are not keen to seek advice from someone on a MN board who does not understand that when when the word sex is used in the Equality Act, it is referring to biological sex.

@BetsyM00

A Silk who starts his submissions by suggesting that s212 of the EqA helps (note how that was ignored by the judge) isnt really taking the argument forward, IMHO

Given that s212 states the definition of woman as "a female of any age" it seems quite relevant, IMHO. It was not ignored by the judge at all, but, even if you think it was, then that would make it a good point to challenge in the reclaiming motion.

Perhaps you can appreciate that women are not keen to seek advice from someone on a MN board who does not understand that when when the word sex is used in the Equality Act, it is referring to biological sex.

Nope. All that section does is ensure that there is no need to keep defining 'woman' to include 'girl'. If it meant what you would like it to mean it would have been written differently. Where, pray, is mention of biological sex in the Equality Act?

Where, pray, is mention of biological sex in the Equality Act?

What do you think 'female' means?

All that section does is ensure that there is no need to keep defining 'woman' to include 'girl'. If it meant what you would like it to mean it would have been written differently. Where, pray, is mention of biological sex in the Equality Act?

Karen Monaghan helped write the EA2010, did she not? And here she is telling you, Robin, what sex means in terms of the EA2010 in the evidence session you both attended recently with the WESC.

Are you saying the QC who helped write the act is mistaken?

Robin

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

What do you think this refers to exactly if not a biological female?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/1

Also further proof that sex and gender are not interchangeable in law. In the EA sex refers to biological sex, and persons with a GRC are mostly treated as a person of the sex they identify as. But not, hypothetically, in this suggested scenario.

Actually, looking back on that exchange, I think this answer here:

"All that section does is ensure that there is no need to keep defining 'woman' to include 'girl'. If it meant what you would like it to mean it would have been written differently. Where, pray, is mention of biological sex in the Equality Act?"

Is a good enough reason to expand the definition to make crystal clear that, as Karen Monaghan says, means biological sex - because then people like Robin can't use the claims that they're just 'concerned' about removing the "difficulties for particular people". Whereas this comment shows Robin quite enjoys creating difficulties for women by suggesting that language thats clear to most genuine good faith contributors isn't clear. How else can Robin justify coming onto MN & gloating over a legal case Robin isn't involved with & which Robin knows is quite important to a lot of women? Especially when Robin has been told by the women who wrote the EA2010 what the definition means. But Robin says she's wrong.

I wonder why Robin would push that narrative? It's a real puzzler 🤔

Here's a challenge.

If people contributing to this thread think the definition in the EA2010 is unclear that it actually means biological sex, what wording would be clear to define 'man' & 'woman' & 'male' & 'female' as biological sex, so as to avoid this inexplicable confusion that some people have with (to me) clear wording that confirms 'man' & 'woman' and 'male' & 'female' refers to biological sex.

I'd be keen to hear how others would have done it better than Karen Monaghan. She sounded quite smart & articulate to me in that session, but maybe she just needs it explained better so she'll be able to learn and 'do better'.

@NonnyMouse1337

"This would not require the person to dress, look or behave in any particular way. However, it would be expected that there would be evidence that the person was continuously living as a woman, such as – always using female pronouns; using a female name on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, or on utility bills or bank accounts; using female titles; updating the gender marker to female on official documents such as a driving licence or passport; describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication as a woman."

It's such nonsense because you aren't even allowed to ask for evidence of this.

The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.

🙄🙄🙄

How? What? Mind blowing.