For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

@EdgeOfACoin

So if a woman has a unisex name (say, Leslie) and is a doctor, so goes by the title Dr, how does this person live as either a woman or a man?

Is the only thing that makes Dr Leslie a woman the fact that other people refer to her as 'she' and 'her'? Literally nothing else makes Dr Leslie a woman?

And if Dr Leslie is referred to as 'he' or 'him', does that literally make Dr Leslie a man?

I think this would be Schrodinger's Leslie, simultaneously a man and a woman until such times as Leslie clarifies their pronouns to that particular group on that particular day.

The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women - 1558. I can’t see there’s been much improvement (although these days they could easily circumvent the issue of women only rule...)

@EdgeOfACoin

So if a woman has a unisex name (say, Leslie) and is a doctor, so goes by the title Dr, how does this person live as either a woman or a man?

Is the only thing that makes Dr Leslie a woman the fact that other people refer to her as 'she' and 'her'? Literally nothing else makes Dr Leslie a woman?

And if Dr Leslie is referred to as 'he' or 'him', does that literally make Dr Leslie a man?

Just check Leslie’s payslip. If Leslie is a woman she’ll be paid less.

@yeahbutnaw

Welp. You guys wasted another 100k.

Imagine how much better the world would be if you put that money into charities instead of these failed legal crowdfunders.

Because we are going to fight to keep the hard earned rights to ensure that the future generations of women will have them.

It’s a worthy cause, even if you don’t think so 🤷‍♀️

Schrodinger's Leslie is a perfect phrase Pear.

I am going to use it for every single through-the-looking-glass / down-the-rabbit-hole piece of DARVO abuse that women are faced with in this fight. Which means I will be using it at least daily.

Schrodinger's Leslies to the left of us, Schrodinger's Leslies to the right of us. But we battle on!

@yeahbutnaw

Welp. You guys wasted another 100k.

Imagine how much better the world would be if you put that money into charities instead of these failed legal crowdfunders.

Us women can spend our money where we want

And for what we want

Its our money

Nobody is telling me where to spend my money 🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️

The only reason women need charities for life saving services is because we aren't considered fully human.

In answer to why we bother, I will paraphrase a protest sign I saw -

'I do this so I can look my daughter in the face and tell her I tried'.

So true @Waitwhat23

My first name is unusual and is generally assumed to be a man’s name. I occasionally receive post addressed to Mr Cattenberg. Under Scots law, am I a man or a woman? Who decides? Catalogue companies?

Actually my brother name is unisex - I guess mostly a mans name but not unusual for a woman (possibly more usual for women these days actually) and has the same spelling. I should let him know...

‘Operating as a woman’? I am not a fucking household appliance.

We won’t stand for this and we will support our Scottish sisters however we can.

My name is usually associated with females but can be a man’s name.

Thanks to the normal assumptions of who will be paying the household bills two of my utility bills have been coming to Mr for the past 3 years.

Couldn’t be arsed to change them. Laziness now means I can declare myself as living as a man.

Excellent. You looking forward to your pay rise @BewaretheIckabog?

Are you operating as a man or woman if you are a Dr with an ambiguous name and wear a kilt?

Times is reporting it:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e9c5b740-8c16-11eb-8f69-0367b6f4fca7?shareToken=6ece0d66c48eb26e8d8ac59dd41fde00

That is an unusually unclear article for the Times. It does not make it clear that the ruling allows males to claim that they are women. Unless readers have followed this issue, many will understand 'transgender women' to mean females who identify as men.

the meaning of woman would be broadened. It would cease to be a “female of any age” and would include transgender women

As many of us should comment as possible under the article to let them know what we think.

I'm shaking with rage right now.

If the Scottish legislation was about increasing trans representation, as the Times article suggests, why didn’t they (or maybe they couldn’t?) instead legislate to reserve some seats for trans people? Theoretically, they could have no trans representation on boards, just as there could be no women

‘To increase representation in the board room’ so how many trans men and how many trans women is the target?

So on a board of, say 10 people - how many is that - of each (because that’s what it’s all bailout surely? Fairness? Although how someone’s trans status could have one iota of relevance if you are on the board of a small company that makes bricks god alone knows).

How do they define ‘trans’ because the stonewall law is very wide - so how do they know that we don’t already have whatever the magic % is? Or is this also to kill 2 birds with one stone (if boards have a policy to have x% ow women on the board).

Why is there a law specifically for this? Was there ever an actual law to push more women into the board room?

Is there a law to push more representation of those say, with disabilities or refugees or minority groups on boards?

Why specifically this group? Can anyone explain this?

If you wish to increase the representation of a marginalised group, then increase the representation of that marginalised group. Don’t pretend that they are contained within another marginalised group.
I don’t know how the judge can claim that this is nothing to do with trans rights.

Define ‘marginalised group’ 🤔 because... 🤭 you know...

Thank you for the share token @Igneococcus

There must be an awful lot of comments on that Times article. There is a delay in comments appearing which usually means they have loads and that usually means people are angry