For Women Scotland lose case

[PandorasMailbox]

Absolutely gutted for them

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1374330580473630721

I was wondering about that. Good - I hope they see what people think and maybe do a follow up investigation into why this came about.

No problem PandorasMailbox

Can anyone post under an article they accessed with a sharetoken? I realized that I don't know that.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'. I would have thought it was either or - either someone thinks said person is a woman or they think they are a transwoman. They surely can't be both at once.

Is this Schrodingers woman?

Anyway, we women just don't know how good we have it. We should definitely all just shut up (bear in mind the 'hate crime bill' now means we should be careful what we say, as 'sex based rights' has been described by an MP as 'hateful').

Is this really what trans-women want? Concerning that it wasn't open to public debate. Interested to hear the views of TW if any reading.

Nah, if trans women were really women, organisations wouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate them like they've been doing. And policy makers and politicians wouldn't be rushing to include them in all kinds of legislation.

P.S. surgery is not required to be a trans woman. You just have to click your heels and say the magic words. That's queer theory for you.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'.

I couldn’t understand the ruling as it was long and full of legal detail. But one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that we must fight for clear language, every time we debate this issue. We cannot continue to use a word that implies men are a kind of woman. Biological accuracy has to come before forced speech.

Lady Wise’s statement was confusing as she stated men who claim they are women were protected under the EA under sex as well as gender reassignment. It is wholly unclear what that meant, because obviously in legislation to assist women, sex does not apply for male people.

I hope there will be some clarification, but likely there won’t. And the only way to prevent that confusion is to use plain English, every single time.

Agree, Prion. Most people, I think, are unclear as to what 'transwoman' means - I think most people think it means someone born female and living 'as a man'.

I think it's worth mentioning here that FWS had their costs pretty much covered until EN/STA intervention. That increased costs substantially & that's what is being asked for now. And the costs are needed before they can even get advice on whether to appeal.

So, we can all 'thank' the fully Scotgov supported (and mostly funded) EN/STA for the additional costs being asked for.

I want to see the worked example of the double discrimination. If I go to ACAS, say, I can see illustrations of what “disability discrimination” would look like in employment. Like this:

“Example
A business is looking to hire a personal assistant. In the job application form, there's a question asking if the applicant has any disabilities that will make doing the job difficult. As disability is a protected characteristic, this question is against the law”.

What would that look like in the case that a transgender person had been discriminated against twice because of both their sex and their gender reassignment? The closest I can get is if it was the case of a trans man- the initial discrimination was that they were discriminated against because they were trans, and then the second discrimination wasthat they were pregnant, maybe? And doesn’t that illustrate that yet again, we’re looking in the wrong direction for where the unfairness occurs, because we’re looking at males, when it’s potentially females who suffer.

This is very messy.

From my quick and non-expert read, the judge said that transwomen are effectively twice discriminated against - once as 'women' and once under 'gender reassignment'.

That's what people like Stella Creasy believe, too. It's nonsense. They have a protected characteristic. If they are mistakenly perceived as women they can claim sex discrimination. If like the vast majority they don't pass, they may be experiencing discrimination due to their gender reassignment characteristic.

Nah, if trans women were really women, organisations wouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate them like they've been doing. And policy makers and politicians wouldn't be rushing to include them in all kinds of legislation.

Precisely.

What would that look like in the case that a transgender person had been discriminated against twice because of both their sex and their gender reassignment? The closest I can get is if it was the case of a trans man- the initial discrimination was that they were discriminated against because they were trans, and then the second discrimination wasthat they were pregnant, maybe? And doesn’t that illustrate that yet again, we’re looking in the wrong direction for where the unfairness occurs, because we’re looking at males, when it’s potentially females who suffer.

Yes, that is a potentially plausible - if unlikely - situation, although I think this JR any instances would have been regarding transwomen - I don't believe transmen are mentioned or included at all?

They have a protected characteristic. If they are mistakenly perceived as women they can claim sex discrimination. If like the vast majority they don't pass, they may be experiencing discrimination due to their gender reassignment characteristic.

Yep, and I think this is proper and fair.

Why the fuck are we having to take our own government to court to uphold the Equality Act?

It is wholly unclear what that meant, because obviously in legislation to assist women, sex does not apply for male people.

Well, the EA2010 is formally symmetrical, in that you can't discriminate against people directly or indirectly for being male or female.

But in practice it's females who rely on that more, eg indirect discrimination for lack of support for childbirth-related issues. And the permitted sex-based exemptions are also mainly relied on by females.

@NecessaryScene1

It is wholly unclear what that meant, because obviously in legislation to assist women, sex does not apply for male people.

Well, the EA2010 is formally symmetrical, in that you can't discriminate against people directly or indirectly for being male or female.

But in practice it's females who rely on that more, eg indirect discrimination for lack of support for childbirth-related issues. And the permitted sex-based exemptions are also mainly relied on by females.

I understand that, but this was a specific case where the situation pertained to women. Therefore in this specific case, sex does not cover a person who does not belong to the female sex.

You either have to qualify as being either male sex or female sex. You can’t simply be covered on the grounds of having a sex.

Thanks for the share token @Igneococcus. I too am very, very angry. I think the SG is using "trans rights" aka shitting on women to signal their perceived moral superiority over England to those who don't follow this closely. It's part of something bigger which makes it harder to fight.

Unless since there is according to the judge no relevant discernable difference between women and transwomen in law, women also are covered by all the trans legislation as well as the sex legislation?

I've had a look at their site, there is a shortfall in the number of digs so I did a bit of trowelling.

I can't imagine how much energy it must take them to keep this going. Thank you, FWS, if you are reading, just thank you for what you are doing.

Thank you FWS for all the work you do

Thanks for the reminder vivaria its a good day for gardening. Just popped along to turn the beds over a bit.

@Halloweenrainbow

Is this really what trans-women want? Concerning that it wasn't open to public debate. Interested to hear the views of TW if any reading.

Never claim to speak for trans women as a group but happy to answer in personal terms. What 'this' are you referring to, please?

The situation in Scotland gets more frightening by the day. writing on the wall IN CHALK gets the police round.

wingsoverscotland.com/chalk-and-cheese/

Bumping. This is dire.Can folk please tweet the link to FWSs you -know -what if you are on twitter. Or post on fb if you are brave! Thanks