For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong.

Go on, educate us then.

@R0wantrees

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"

So the person has to be both a woman and not transsexual. This excludes all transsexual people and all people who are legally recognised as men.

A transman without a GRC is legally a woman, but is transsexual.

A transman with a GRC is legally a man, and is also transsexual.

Of course it also excludes all transwomen.

A transwoman without a GRC is legally a man and is transsexual.

A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman but is transsexual. This is the group of people that the 'even if she has a GRC' clause relates to.

Am I missing something here?

Also referring to the "transsexual person" as she, they clearly mean a male, or surely it would have been drafted as "she or he". Just as if they meant a biological female, it would have been "he" as per the rest of the explanatory notes.

I expect we are going to be told no one can ever be excluded because non binary. Once you are non binary everyone becomes a comparator.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Also referring to the "transsexual person" as she, they clearly mean a male, or surely it would have been drafted as "she or he". Just as if they meant a biological female, it would have been "he" as per the rest of the explanatory notes.

I agree, but what it actually says is 'a woman and not a transsexual person', which also excludes transmen for the reasons in my previous post.

There would be no need to say 'she or he' because a transman with a GRC is legally a man so is not eligible for the post because of not being a woman (in legal terms).

So the person has to be both a woman and not transsexual. This excludes all transsexual people and all people who are legally recognised as men.

A transman without a GRC is legally a woman, but is transsexual.

A transman with a GRC is legally a man, and is also transsexual.

Of course it also excludes all transwomen.

A transwoman without a GRC is legally a man and is transsexual.

A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman but is transsexual. This is the group of people that the 'even if she has a GRC' clause relates to.

Am I missing something here?

Woman and man are defined in Equality Act 2010.
Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Uncommonground Media May 2020
Dr Julia Long
'A Meaningful Transition?'
(extract)
"Language determines what is perceptible, thinkable, possible and knowable within a culture. Language develops to support and enable different ways of thinking, or is suppressed in order to discourage them. The speed and ease with which new terms are established determines how quickly new social realities become normal; ‘social distancing’ and ‘self-isolation’ are obvious current examples. The relationship between the words we use and the lives we live is, to borrow Andrea Dworkin’s phrase, an umbilical one.

This relationship is nowhere more obvious than in the phenomenon of ‘transgenderism,’ which has over the past decade or so introduced a dizzying and seemingly endless proliferation of patently absurd new terms and concepts: ‘gender identity’, ‘trans woman’, ‘non-binary’. Given that these terms are based on false premises and easily exposed as fictitious, it is strange that the British gender critical movement has shown very little willingness to reject wholesale the pernicious language of transgenderism" (continues)
uncommongroundmedia.com/a-meaningful-transition-julia-long/

That's the problem when you read legislation WANTING it to say something it doesnt.

It seems you want the legislation to mean TW, with or without a GRC, are not excluded in the circumstances outlined as an example with regards to a female only rape counselling session. Most see both the wording of the EA2010 exception & the example given to be clear that female only counselling rape support group sessions can exclude even a TW with a GRC. Because the reasoning for the need for that exception is very clear & understood - rape survivors need to feel they can speak in a safe, female only space, about their experiences & research confirms that traumatised women would either not speak or self exclude from a setting that is mixed sex. I think if you had a genuine interest in the well-being & recovery of rape survivors & understood what trauma informed support meant, you'd understand that too. Most people understand where the need for that exception comes from, why it was included & how the wording explains both the terms & worked examples. But you say most people are wrong, are engaged in wishful thinking (despite the co-author of the act confirming most people's interpretation is correct).

But you wanting it to say & mean something else doesn't make it so. You clearly think your own interpretation trumps how others see & understand how the single sex the exceptions work & what their intent was. But you've failed to even give any coherent argument or explain what your idea of wording that does exclude males, irrespective of their 'inner gender' or a legal fiction enacted by piece of paper, to demonstrate just how wrong/inadequate/misleading the current wording & meanings in theEA2010 are.

So, I'm calling bullshit on this drip feed & failure to back up claims of everyone else being 'wrong' or intellectually inferior cos they can't reach the same contorted conclusions of someone with the clear motivation to erase any boundaries set in law for the protection of women's privacy, dignity & safety.

Can you actually back up your claims? Can you make your pretzel arguments convince anyone who agrees with Karen Monaghan's statement that man/woman/male/female means sex, which means biological sex, that you've cracked the code most other people don't see?

I highly doubt it, cos I think anyone who thinks they've cracked something few others 'get' and it's so extraordinary because it's so far removed from the author's own intent & confirmation of meaning, they'd be at least able to state their case clearly, mic drop fashion, to shut up all us ill-informed women.

These sorts of performative non-substance arguments remind me of the 'just because' juvenile reactions I've had from children (mine & others) because they can't back up their position. I'm sure FWS are scratching their heads in panic at this 'just because' non-argument & will be revising their assessment on the likely prospects of success 'cos Robin has the secret key that cracks the code they can't work out. 🤨

Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Transsexual is defined here under gender reassignment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

I agree, but what it actually says is 'a woman and not a transsexual person', which also excludes transmen for the reasons in my previous post.

I think it's just clumsily drafted, because the wording in the other similar example where the needs of female rape survivors are considered is specific in only referring to an MTF trans person.

It can't exclude most FTM trans people on the grounds of sex as they are legally female.

Yes come on Robin, we await the mic drop moment, as Shadowy put it.

[quote OldCrone]Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Transsexual is defined here under gender reassignment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7[/quote]
Its rather circular isnt it?

^2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person^

A reminder that Robin Moira White tried to argue that the Equality Act
doesn't apply to Stonewall in Allison Bailey's case.
The judge did not agree.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603670b4d3bf7f0ab2f070b3/Ms_A_Bailey_-v-Stonewall_Equality_Limited___others_2202172_2020-_preliminary_judgment.pdf
I do not accept that Ms White’s point about whether Stonewall is in a position to commit a basic contravention of the Act against chambers for the purposes of s 111(7) comes anywhere near rendering the Claimant’s claim unarguable. Quite the reverse in fact. There is nothing in the Act to suggest there is some sort of threshold for this purpose: if there is a service provision relationship between Stonewall and Chambers (which is not in dispute) that would be caught by s 29 of the EA 2010 if Stonewall discriminated against Chambers and that suffices in my judgment.

All sorts of things can be seen in the Act if you want them to.

Cor. People are still playing pigeon chess with our visitor?

I salute your patience and must say it has resulted in some excellent and very informative posts.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes come on Robin, we await the mic drop moment, as Shadowy put it.

I suspect there isn't one. That much is clear from the lack of anything like a coherent response or explanation behind the quite extraordinary claim that the barrister who co-wrote the EA2010 is wrong about her own intent & meaning when writing the act.

There's a term for that - explaining to the person who did the work & is the expert how they're wrong - but I think if I referenced it here, no doubt I'd get deleted & maybe banned. Such is the precarious nature of being a woman, speaking, and having dangerous innocuous opinions.

Its rather circular isnt it?

2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person

Oh dear Lord.
It's as bad as 'a woman is someone who feels like a woman'.

robin, do you think it doesn't need to exclude transwomen because the women won't know they're trans? What if they do?

Do you think they should be forced to accept it?

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.

The contortions are laughable. So much effort was expended trying to eliminate the occupational requirement in the 2016 review and yet all along they were all mistaken as it meant the opposite of what it said, but no-one noticed.

130. Mridul Wadhwa told us that the provision was: discriminatory to transsexual people especially trans women. I genuinely believe that there is no space for it in the gender-based violence sector and that it has no place in violence against women work. I was unaware of its existence until a few weeks ago. I have worked in the violence against women sector since 2005 and have never known for it to be used. I am disappointed to think that someone has the right to refuse work to me and others like me in my sector just because they think that I might not be a woman.

Why didn't Clare McCann simply say it's ok, it doesn't mean transwomen, it means transmen at the time?
Page 31.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

I suppose its an angle that might sell a few copies of a book to people who wish to further obfuscate and confuse.

Here's Scottish Trans Alliance's written submission to the 2016 WESC (they also called for the removal of the SSEs):

"The Equality Act 2010 should be amended to:...

Remove the exception that allows single sex services to discriminate against trans people

Remove the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) allowing some jobs to require applicants must be cisgender and replace it with a GOR allowing posts delivering trans-specific services to require applicants must be transgender

Link to submission here

Further details provided in the evidence session Link here

Exemptions in respect of trans people
Separate-sex and single-sex services
110.The Equality Act 2010 allows for the provision of separate-sex113 and single-sex services114 where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (a form of words intended to require the application of an objective standard of justification). The Act also effectively permits service providers not to allow a trans person to access separate-sex or single-sex services—on a case-by-case basis, where exclusion is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.115

...the Scottish Transgender Alliance thought the provision:

allows wide scope for service providers .... The provision can result in exclusion of vulnerable trans people from vital services such as homeless accommodation, emergency sexual health services and psychological support services. We recommend this single sex services exception be removed

116.Mr Morton of the Alliance elaborated as follows:

The exception, as currently drawn, effectively has no limit...

117.He added that if other service-users felt uncomfortable sharing a service with a trans woman you would not turn [the trans woman] away... There might be some situations and very limited situations where you might have to treat someone differently, but they should not be treated worse.

So, exceptions are acceptable as long as it's to the benefit of trans people (where it's recognised that trans people benefit from having support from other trans people) but females needing support from other female people is discriminatory to trans people.

And STA were calling for the removal of single sex exceptions because "The exception, as currently drawn, effectively has no limit" and allowed "some situations and very limited situations where you might have to treat someone differently"**

But here, we have Robin telling us that even STA/James Morton was wrong back in 2016, along with Karen Monaghan in 2021. And Robin has uniquely determined that all that effort in 2016 was a mistake cos now Robin thinks the exceptions don't actually do what Karen Monaghan (who co-wrote the EA2010) says it does, along with the many trans people & LGBT orgs were falling over themselves to stress how harmful those exceptions were to trans people.

I think FWS lawyers will be fine and can handle the case ok without the benefit of Robin's wisdom. Not that Robin has any intention of sharing that wisdom of course. Which is entirely the point I'm guessing.

Robin will be sharing the wisdom

www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/

Gaslighting comments from White on this thread illustrate perfectly why women have to be vigilant and fight this nonsense. The smallest opening and they are arguing that up is down and left is right. The dishonesty, lack of empathy and sneering prove, once again, that those pushing this agenda have no interest in women or women's rights and don't care who gets hurt. Frankly, Robin makes me even more determined to support those fighting this.

For the princely sum of £29.99 we can all find out.

I think I'll give it a miss, thanks.

Not really relevant to this thread but...

I've noted that towards then end of this thread there are arguments that words / phrases don't actually mean what they commonly mean. And that people (usually women) are just being a bit silly, and because they are not legal experts can't possible understand what is really meant.

This struck me as a couple of other threads recently (the Stonewall / ILGA/ age of consent, and the Greens removing sex from birth certificates) are very very similar.

The common thread being that women read something that is written, that has the potential of being detrimental to women or children, and speak out about this. Upon speaking out they are bombarded by (usually men) telling them they are taking it out of context, the words don't mean what they say, of course they don't mean that...

I just find this interesting.

There's a free podcast here:

R. White (assisted by James Morton) represented a former Jaguar-Landrover male employee (Taylor) who wished to wear stereotypical feminine clothes to work and was bullied by co-workers.

White explains that a key part of the Jaguar Landrover case rested on comment by Vera Baird about the nature of 'gender reassignment' from Hansard. (see screenshot)
It would be useful to know the context/date of this statement.

Thus claiming coverage for an occasional cross dressing engineer as 'gender fluid/non binary' to be included in protected characteristic 'gender reassignment'

Baird is a former Solicitor General now Victims' Commissioner.
Wiki
A Labour Party Member of Parliament for Redcar from 2001 to 2010, Baird was a government minister from 2006 to 2010 and the Solicitor General for England and Wales from 2007 to 2010. She served as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria Police from November 2012 to June 2019.

I am not a lawyer but remain shocked that well educated professionals would nod along with such nonsensical sentences as Baird's

Remove the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) allowing some jobs to require applicants must be cisgender and replace it with a GOR allowing posts delivering trans-specific services to require applicants must be transgender

Surprise, surprise, I daren't say anymore, however, I think that speaks volumes.

The last 3 or 4 minutes of that video, amidst a few insults aimed, at women Robin explains that sex in the equality act is always misread. Two blokes nodding along saying that's very interesting.