For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

I might be out of turn here but the act needs to make provision for the Crocodile Dundee squeeze.

He understood the definition of a woman - eventually.

If the only thing preventing the kind of discrimination usually dealt out to women was living as a man by using a male name and pronouns then I am gutted I didn't do this before

There's also this response from a FOI:

"The Scottish Government gives sex its ordinary meaning. The Equality Act 2010 says that in relation to the protected characteristic of sex, a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman. Man and woman are defined for the purposes of the 2010 Act at section 212; ‘man’ means a male of any age and ‘woman’ means a female of any age.

The Scottish Government does not have an official definition of gender."

www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000116319/

Ahh Betsy that’s the exact quote I need to —ram down— send my MSP! Thank you

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.

If a word is not specifically defined in an Act of Parliament, surely it is understood that the definition of that word is the commonly used dictionary definition.

For female, that would be something like "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs".

'Woman' is given the specific meaning of 'a female of any age' to indicate that 'woman' includes girls. 'Female' is the dictionary definition which relates to biology.

From this we can conclude that 'woman' means any female person, which is a biological definition since the dictionary definition of female is biological.

Online dictionaries now include definitions like: "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male", but in 2010 when the EA2010 was passed, the only dictionary definitions would have been the biological ones.

As I demonstrated upthread, the explanatory notes of the Equality Act 2010 refer to a "woman" when they clearly can only mean a biological female, as they specifically say that a transsexual person can be excluded from working in a rape counselling service "even if she has a gender recognition certificate".

Note that the MTF transsexual person with a gender recognition certificate is not included in the "woman" who can be required for the role.

In 2021 we're supposed to think such a scenario, where only females can apply for a rape counsellor role, is terribly bigoted, but it clearly was not considered so by the people who drafted the EA.

@TheShadowyFeminist

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'.

I think the words male and female in the EA were not explicitly defined and so their everyday meaning has to be inferred. Everyday meanings can change or be reinterpreted over time. It seems to me that their intended meaning within the EA does now need to be pinned down in order to avoid ambiguity that may potentially render the original aim of the legislation difficult to enforce.

We need a definition that encompasses differences in sexual development in order to capture the full reality and not exclude people. I have heard that this is something that is difficult to do, but have had a go. My proposal includes the ability up to a point in time for people with DSD to officially change their recorded sex - something I don't think is available at the moment. I have tried to be sensitive, but words designed to be used for legal purposes are inevitable cold and hard. I am truly sorry if this inadvertently upsets anyone with a DSD, I have tried to produce a workable definition with a legitimate aim:

"Sex is different to Gender. When determining the Sex of an individual:

Male means a human who was born with anatomy that generally results in the production of sperm and not the anatomy that generally results in the production of ova.

Female means a human who was born with anatomy that generally results in the production of ova and not anatomy that generally results in the production of sperm.

Generally means in the population as a whole. The ability of an individual to actually produce ova or sperm either absolutely or at a particular point or period in time is irrelevant.

Sex cannot be changed. However, rarely, an individual may have indeterminate anatomy at birth or it may be discovered at a later date that their natural anatomy does not align with one of the above definitions. In such cases an initial sex may be assigned and this may be revised up to age 25 taking into consideration, where there are elements of both male and female anatomy, the individual’s own assessment of their sex. This time period allows for completion of puberty (full development of sexual anatomy) and brain development (full development of decision making regions)."

An alternative would be to include a third descriptor of sex, such as intersex, as an option for people with DSD who as fully developed adults do not define themselves as either male or female. I think they have this in Germany?

I don't think we can rely on dictionary definitions long term, as the English approach to dictionaries is descriptive not prescriptive

Just a suggestiion, but can anyone who has the link to the announcement of the appeal start a new thread with this clearly being the title.

I think many on FWR would like to hear this, but wont be bothering with this thread.

I cant find anything that clearly announces this.

Thanks

Grim sorry for you Scotland

@littlebillie

Grim sorry for you Scotland

Ta.

😭

@JustGiveMeTwoMinutes

I don't think we can rely on dictionary definitions long term, as the English approach to dictionaries is descriptive not prescriptive

But it seems reasonable to assume that the commonly accepted meaning of female as denoting biological sex which was the one seen in the dictionaries of 2010 was the one which was intended to be used in the EA2010.

As you say, in 2021 it may now need to be emphasised that it is the biological meaning which is intended, since some people now seem to think that 'female' is a feeling which a penis haver may have about himself. (I was going to write 'male person' there instead of penis haver, but I realised that if 'female' is a feeling then so is 'male', so in this new world where words no longer have meanings, a 'male person' could just as easily be a biologically female person as one who is biologically male.)

@TheShadowyFeminist

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?

Yes. She is wrong.

The EqA makes no mention of biological sex.

The partial quote from KM to the WWSC leaves out the 'of any age' from s212. So why is that there?

The EqA makes no mention of biological sex.

What do you think 'female' means?

OldCrone

The EqA makes no mention of biological sex.

What do you think 'female' means?

Yep - waiting for an answer. Happy for anyone to reference the biological differences between my mother and my father if that helps for clarity...

Part of the flaws in the drafting of the EA 10 is that it didn’t expect this current utter lunacy.

Part of the flaws in the drafting of the EA 10 is that it didn’t expect this current utter lunacy.

Completely agree.

The EqA makes no mention of biological sex.

Again (my bold):

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?

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

There is no other way to be female other than biologically.

Part of the flaws in the drafting of the EA 10 is that it didn’t expect this current utter lunacy.

Indeed. But I am more than happy to expose it, if that's what's going to happen. If people are going to argue the toss, let's bloody have it. It will show the entire nonsense up.

There is no other way to be female other than biologically.

Quite. But the claim that there is no mention of biological sex in the EA is disingenuous. The explanatory notes specifically reference the possibility of excluding all MTF trans people, even GRC holders from a rape counselling role. And say that only a "woman" might be appropriate. So women is shorthand for biological female.

There are exemptions in both the GRA and EA for the occasional exclusion of transsexuals from the criteria of male/man and female/woman.

The criteria of their acquired gender (legal sex for most purposes) I mean.

@OldCrone

The EqA makes no mention of biological sex.

What do you think 'female' means?

Oh wow. Is this another one of those humpty dumpty words?

If males wanting to access roles set aside for females through loopholes because those drafting the legislation never once supposed there would be such a deterioration of the definition of woman or female, doesn't that simply point out that those males are trying to force changes against the intention of the legislation.

Obviously, it also means that from now on, every single bill needs to have specific language and definition. Which means that inclusive language will need to also be defined or removed so that future ambiguity is limited...

This is the result of people who are NOT part of the group they are forceably accessing, insisting that language changes over time and therefore they can claim to be included in the 'new' definition. Meanwhile, those people previously fitting that description are left without the protections that were intended.

For some, it must feel really good to redefine women to suit your own purposes. Against the will of the majority of women might be an even better outcome for others too.