For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

Yes, exactly.

The very fact of 'exceptions' is built on the premise of a difference.

And I'm sick to death of people pretending there is no difference.

But more than that, I'm totally over people trying to squeeze meaning out of words that don't have that meaning.

Knock yourself out personally, but for the love of God, do not expect other people to go along with it.

Yes. She is wrong.

Quite the bold claim. So the QC who co-wrote the EA2010 says woman/man/male/female refers to biological sex, and you tell her she's wrong?

Presumably you can provide us all with better wording if Karen has failed in language most other good faith contributors understand to mean biological sex. How would you word the definitions so that its crystal clear to you, seeing as you're in the minority in not being able to understand the wording/definitions in the EA2010? If it's so ambiguous as you claim, provide the definitive wording that solves all the confusion.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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".

Sorry, no. The wording doesn’t lead to that conclusion. Happy to argue it in court some time. It refers to someone one who is ‘a woman and not a transsexual person’. The comparator would be a woman who IS a transsexual person.’ Would you suggest that a trans man - who is a biological female - would be acceptable? That is what this guidance excludes - a man who is a transsexual person.

“What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

Still unclear to me if it is believed that the woman who is a transsexual person is transman or trabswoman

Are you seriously arguing that the transsexual person to be excluded from female only rape counselling session is a female to male transsexual & not a male to female transsexual? That's your argument?

It refers to someone one who is ‘a woman and not a transsexual person’. The comparator would be a woman who IS a transsexual person.’ Would you suggest that a trans man - who is a biological female - would be acceptable? That is what this guidance excludes - a man who is a transsexual person.

Let's look at the actual wording in the EA.

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.

Do you really think they are talking about a transman here? It says "Even if she has a GRC". Why would they refer to a transman with a GRC as 'she'? And why 'even' if she has a GRC? A transman having a GRC would make them less eligible for a female-only position than a transman without, since they would have become a man in legal terms, and should be treated (in most cases) as a man.

If you read through other instances of where they refer to transsexual people, they always use 'she' for MtF and 'he' for FtM, so this also makes it unlikely that it is a transman who is being referred to here.

The EA2010 also gives this example in the explanatory notes (para 740):
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5

It's quite clear who they are talking about here.

It refers to someone one who is ‘a woman and not a transsexual person’. The comparator would be a woman who IS a transsexual person.’

I've just had another thought about this. I'm not sure why you use the word 'comparator' here, but if it is saying someone must be 'a woman and not a transsexual person', surely that means that the person must fit both of those categories: a woman and not transsexual. So this excludes all men (trans or not) and all transsexual people, whether transmen or transwomen. Biological women only, who don't identify as transmen (who might look more male than female if taking testosterone).

Technically the EA2010 outlines that both ftm and mtf people can be lawfully excluded from female services, one on account of their maleness, the other on account of perceived maleness.

Hmm. Which one is which I wonder, whatever do all these words even mean anyway.

It's quite clear who they are talking about here.

It is, but I had a little bet with myself what would be the response, and I'm pleased to say I owe myself a drink.

Happy to argue it in court some time.

You do that 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.”

“It refers to someone one who is ‘a woman and not a transsexual person’. The comparator would be a woman who IS a transsexual person.”

Are you trying to frame it that they mean.
“a woman who ISN’T a transsexual person.” (being the converse of “ a woman who IS a transsexual person” )

Rather than: A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman** because a transsexual person ....

**Where the comparator would be a man

Just to confirm then, as a computer scientist.

Robin is saying (WOMAN OR TRANSWOMAN) AND (NOT(FEMALE AND TRANSEXUAL)) === (WOMAN OR TRANSAWOMAN) AND (NOT (TRANSMAN)

but to my reading, the guidance means WOMAN AND (NOT (TRANSMAN OR TRANSWOMAN)

?

Why would the Equality Act, after having taken such pains to be inclusive to trans people on the basis of their gender and let biological males counsel rape victims, and not call a female to male person a woman, then misgender those FTM trans people? Thoughts?

f you read through other instances of where they refer to transsexual people, they always use 'she' for MtF and 'he' for FtM, so this also makes it unlikely that it is a transman who is being referred to here.

The EA2010 also gives this example in the explanatory notes (para 740):
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

Yes it's completely consistent with the other exemptions. Thank you for this.

The idea that the wording is so bad it could mean anything & it's all such a puzzling mystery kind of falls apart when the person who co-wrote it says what it means & it makes perfect sense to 99% of the population. Doesn't matter that some people really wish it didn't mean what it says it does, the meaning is clear & understood by 99% of the population.

Dancing on the head of a pin to create the illusion of confusion or widespread misunderstanding is more than a bit of a stretch.

Are you seriously arguing that the transsexual person to be excluded from female only rape counselling session is a female to male transsexual & not a male to female transsexual? That's your argument?

Sadly it seems so. Clearly no understanding that you can exclude based on sex under the single sex exemptions - TM share my sex so can’t be excluded. Would actually be quite funny if it wasn’t so insane. Such consideration not for the traumatised women needing such services.

Ironically - its actually a very transphobic argument - that TM should be excluded based on gender reassignment. Funny how it’s always the same group that should be prioritised. It’s always easy to see which group that is.

Is this the same person who made formal representations that a TW should take maternity leave - but not the mother?

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong. That's the problem when you read legislation WANTING it to say something it doesnt. I back the Lady Wise analysis to survive at appeal. But time will tell.

The EA2010 also gives this example in the explanatory notes (para 740):
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

I do wonder about those who are so motivated to deny female victims of sexual assault by male perpetrators access to single sex female space/ services.
Female victims of male sexual assault who identify as trans or non binary need to be able to access such single sex provision.

There are increasing numbers of young women who have detransitioned/ desisted describing sexual abusive behaviour within trans community. Usual demographics/dynamics of older men targetting girls and young women.

Ben's (GNC Centric) articles and interviews are important:
4thwavenow.com/2019/01/26/my-trans-youth-group-experience-with-morgan-page/

'Coercion & Abuse in the Gender ID Community | with ⚢ GNC-Centric ⚢'

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong.

You can patronise all you like - but the mostly wrong bit? Which bit is the ‘mostly wrong’ which bit is the not the ‘mostly wrong’ bit. The science? The facts? The rationality? The humanity of womanhood?

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

In this paragraph, it's clear that it's a male person being excluded, and it's acknowledged that some women might be distressed by the presence of such a person.

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.

Here, it appears that both transmen and transwomen are excluded ('not a transsexual person'), but emphasises the exclusion of transwomen with GRCs (even if she has a GRC'). My understanding uses the same logic as Kotatsu used above.

I cannot understand how this can be interpreted to include transwomen and exclude transmen. It's not that I want it to have any particular meaning, but I can't see how you can interpret it in the way you do, Robin.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

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.

Here, it appears that both transmen and transwomen are excluded ('not a transsexual person'), but emphasises the exclusion of transwomen with GRCs (even if she has a GRC').

I disagree that there is a clear implication that female transsexuals who identify as 'trans men' are also excluded by the example given.

Many in this group specifically seek to identify out of the category 'woman'.
The transsexual person/s seeking to identify into the category 'woman' are all male sex.

I disagree that there is a clear implication that female transsexuals who identify as 'trans men' are also excluded by the example given.

Wouldn't they be excluded because they are transsexual? It states 'not a transsexual person'. And a transman with a GRC is legally male, so would presumably also be excluded on the basis of not being a woman (in legal terms). It would have been better if the wording had been clearer as it is in the other example which talks about a male to female transsexual.

Wouldn't they be excluded because they are transsexual? It states 'not a transsexual person'.

There are a number of qualifiers to the sentence which should be taken together:

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person"