For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

"Part of the requirement to obtain a gender recognition certificate is that an individual will have to provide to the gender recognition panel evidence of a secure diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

Are non-binary, gender fluid or cross dressing individuals now claiming they also suffer from gender dysphoria? Or is the claim now that gender dysphoria isn't a requirement for individuals to be covered by the GRA? Cos that's quite a departure from the intent of the bill, is it not?

She is clearly referring to birth sex - only two. Male/Female - immutable, unchangeable from conception to death - and verifiable of sex at conception even when a body is dug up and examined 1000 years later, unless you are referring to intersex conditions, where you would also be wrong as they are medical conditions, not a separate sex.

Wading through some of these parliamentary discussions shows how effective Press For Change's insistence that sex, gender and gender identity be conflated.

When the time comes for a thorough examination of lobby groups undue influence on government this will no doubt be a significant chapter.

It strikes me that Vera Baird, somewhat naively, imagined that only people with medical gender dysphoria would seek the protections of the act, or would be granted them.

In Lynne Featherstone's blog at the time she complains that Baird, the then Solictor General, doesn't "get" gender (my bold):

The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their ‘characteristic’ is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that ‘reassignment’ wasn’t medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender – and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they ‘change’ gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) – but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don’t present as male or female identifiably.

Link:

lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/06/13/following-equality-bill-through/

@TheShadowyFeminist

"Part of the requirement to obtain a gender recognition certificate is that an individual will have to provide to the gender recognition panel evidence of a secure diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

Are non-binary, gender fluid or cross dressing individuals now claiming they also suffer from gender dysphoria? Or is the claim now that gender dysphoria isn't a requirement for individuals to be covered by the GRA? Cos that's quite a departure from the intent of the bill, is it not?

Important not to muddle together consideration of the GRA and EqA. Different purposes and different legal tests,

In Lynne Featherstone's blog at the time she complains that Baird, the then Solictor General, doesn't "get" gender (my bold)

Which of course is unsurprising given that the Act of 2004 which legislated its recognition also failed to define it adequately.

Policy makers have thus been chasing their tails ever since.

I was quoting from a section/comment which references the GRA & the requirements to be met to obtain a GRC.

Here's the fuller section:

"I want to reassure the Committee that we are not altering the requirements of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This was the cause of some confusion at Second Reading for the right reverend Prelate. The Act provides people with legal recognition of their acquired gender. Part of the requirement to obtain a gender recognition certificate is that an individual will have to provide to the gender recognition panel evidence of a secure diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

So according to that comment, the intent when debating the gender reassignment characteristic as part of the EA2010 was not to alter the requirements of the GRA i.e. the GRA was intended to cover those who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Again, is the claim now that non-binary/gender fluid/cross dressers meet that requirement?

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it.

Vera Baird (Solicitor General) also referred to, "real sex" as distinct to 'gender identity" in the session quoted:

Public Bill Committee
Thursday 11 June 2009
Equality Bill

(extract)
The Solicitor-General: I will give way, although I have an “angels on the head of a pin” sense about this debate.

Lynne Featherstone: The debate may hinge on a pin head but it is vitally important to a particular community. I am seeking reassurance from the Minister—although I know she feels she has probably already given it. I have constituents who are indeterminate and would not necessarily be identified as gender reassigned or as one sex or the other. They are somewhere in between and unidentifiable physically. I want to make sure that those people are protected. They may not even be on a journey; they may just be indeterminate in their gender identity, so there is no reassignment at all. Would that be covered?

The Solicitor-General: We have not found evidence of discrimination against people who one might call third sex. We have not found discrimination against people like that at all. What causes discrimination is characteristics that other people can see. A state of indecision within oneself or a tentative reflection on where one wants to be on the spectrum will not light itself up so that somebody can discriminate against the person who is thinking or feeling that way.
Column number: 171

Lynne Featherstone: I would argue against that point because there are people who are indeterminate or third gender of whom it cannot be said which sex they are and they face discrimination simply because they do not look quite as expected in either gender.

The Solicitor-General: We have not come across discrimination against any such people that has not been linked to a separation—however tentative, however temporary and however partial—of gender identity and real sex." (continues)

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090611/pm/90611s05.htm

@WhatKatyDidNot

I think Robin's interpretation of EqA 2010 is wrong. Spurious, even.

But what difference would it make for feminists even if it was correct? Not much.

We're interested in what is good for women. Either our interpretation is correct and we campaign for EqA as is to be properly enforced or Robin's interpretation is correct and we campaign for it to be changed so that is actually protective of women.

Let's not go up a blind alley of semantics.

We just want what is best for women.

Maya Forstater Appeal has relevance:

Skeleton argument BEN COOPER QC & ANYA PALMER
13 April 2020:
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

EHRC
(Karon Monghan QC for EHRC said they agreed with all of the legal points raised by claiments' legal team today)
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

Index on Censorship
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-ioc-skeleton-final.pdf

thread with commentary of hearing:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4228233-Maya-Forstaters-appeal-skeleton

thread with discussion of Robin White and Molly Mulready Independent article, 'Maya Forstater is entitled to her views, but anti-transgender beliefs don’t belong in the workplace'
OP Trixie78 wrote,
"I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies in this article. It's making my blood boil."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/maya-forstater-rowling-trans-b1838137.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

Thanks @R0wantrees

I'll be following the case on the Sex Matters thread again today. I'm keeping everything crossed for Maya.

Looks like there might be an early judgement too.

She had the advantage of being the government minister piloting the Bill through the Commons at the time and so her statements as to the meaning of the Bill are an important source which carrys legal weight in interpreting it.

RobinMoiraWhite Given this accordance of weight one assumes that we who know that sex is binary, immutable and matters should use Vera Bairds' descriptor of "real sex" as opposed to gender identity and legal sex (conferred by GRC) for clarity.

The Solicitor-General: We have not come across discrimination against any such people that has not been linked to a separation—however tentative, however temporary and however partial—of gender identity and real sex."