FPFW Court Case

[ButYouGottaHaveASkillJeff]

Is anyone live following the Judicial Review brought by Fair Play for Women regarding the recording of sex in the 2022 Scottish Consensus?

I'm assuming it's allowed to be discussed as FPFW have been allowed to live tweet it.

'lived sex'

how does this twerp think babies are made?

really, I worry about whether these people should be allowed out alone

And why stop at lived sex? What about lived age? Or for those putting in supposedly fraudulent benefits claims - aren't they just living their claim?

But it seems the SG are claiming that if you ignore the law ('recent events') then that just means the law has changed

"Lived sex"

I'm willing to go and flop one of my fibroids out in the courtroom if that would help clarify things for the Judge.

As some drugs work differently in male and female bodies, do we give a male person with a ‘lived sex’ of female, drugs for female bodies? Or is that the point at which reality intervenes?

I don't understand why they think the supplementary question on gender isn't capturing "lived sex" by which they presumably mean gender presentation.

I've followed fpfw and maya's tweets. I wouldn't be surprised if fpfw lose. The judge's starting framework, ie his thinking on sex, is for the other side it seems to me. From the questions and assumptions. And I'm not sure Dunlop is quite getting it across. Could be wrong obviously, but lower courts do seem to be captured. Scotland in general seems to have it worse than England.

But its great that fpfw have brought the case. I hope they have received enough money to cover it.

I really hope I'm wrong and thd judge is just trying to cover all angles before the decision.

This case seems like a dry boring subject, compared to some other gc cases. But it's vital. What does 'sex' mean according to the law? What does legislation actually mean when it says 'sex'? Is it good practice to collect data based on people's actual sex, and not only their self id gender, so that we can have a good picture of what is going on for women as a sex? The census sets the bar for population data projects so what happens there trickles down.

@AlwaysTawnyOwl

As some drugs work differently in male and female bodies, do we give a male person with a ‘lived sex’ of female, drugs for female bodies? Or is that the point at which reality intervenes?

This would be a great question to be asked in court as it really lays the issue bare.

Because there could of course be grave consequences if incorrect doses / serum levels were taken based on 'lived sex' as opposed to actual sex. Might that get the 'be kind' brigade to do a bit of critical thinking?

Surely, given the increase in the number of trans identifying people, data is needed on BOTH sex AND gender, in order to properly allocate resources?

Or is the issue that if everyone who is trans under the Stonewall umbrella noted that fact accurately on the census, the 'only a tiny, tiny minority' narrative would have to change?

Judges basically choose their own cases to handle don't they?
It basically looks like a pro- TRA judge has snatched this case up in order to crush FPFW, using unscientific, harmful ideological codswallop in order to do it.

Normal balanced reasonable judges probably avoided this case because of the publicity.

I didn't steal it m'lord, if you look at recent events, the fact I lived as though I owned it, what is natural and the way I used language when I tried to sell it at the pub you will see the meaning of the law has changed and it was my car to take as I wanted.

Or

It wasn't a party, it was a work event. My use of language in parliament makes it clear it was work and the fact I met with others with food, alcohol and music for work clearly means the meaning of the words of the coronavirus regulations have changed from their original meaning when they were written many hours earlier.

'Ross QC turns to the principle of "updated construction". This is what the meaning of a word in an act should be read as what it means today'

So the law is meaningless, then, because if someone 'updates' a construction of a word it can mean something else?

If FPFW lose then any legislation or regulations around sex are undermined. There is no need for the GRC. How does that work when a lower court judgement undermines other laws by redefining words?

I believe that would then potentially involve the ScotGov failing to uphold the EA. Which would leave them open to being sued by Westminster. But, you know, IANAL.

If they decide that sex in law can mean sex/gender that the person has transitioned to, then Dunlop's question will still stand, what's the purpose of the gra? What law was it changing?

It's a shame they can't go in to the purpose of collecting data on sex, and how the integrity of data will be affected. But I guess the question the court is answering is 'is it lawful for national records Scotland to provide this census guidence?' And if they, the population data experts, want to collect data in this way, the prosecution can't really argue that they are wrong to do so from a data collection pov, only that its against the law.

They are going into the data stuff now, interesting to see if our side will get a chance to counter some of the claims (that data on sex won't be affected)

@lovelyricepudding The court can only make a ruling following the interpretation of the law (whether primary or secondary legislation). It is not a court’s function to “make law”, only ensure that the law is correctly applied.

So any judgement would not “overrule” the law, as that would be ultra vires. Many appeals succeed because the judge erred in the application of the law.

They have more time than for the E&W census which was very last minute. So FPFW could presumably appeal if they lost which I hope they don’t. And the E&W case effectively cost FPFW nothing as the other side had to pay their costs.

I wouldn’t assume anything about the Judge’s perspective from their comments and questions. They have a duty to explore both sides arguments and make sure they understand them. So they should test both sides logic.

I suspect this may all turn on the lack of legal basis for the proposed change. The Scottish Parliament expressly did not recognise sex and gender as identical so how can another law be read as saying they are.

Very nervous about this - the outcome shouldn't be in doubt but it definitely looks like it is.

Placemarking

I assume this can be appealed all the way the the UK Supreme Court? Which would take it away from captured Scottish Judicary.

Increasingly thinking my lived reality is that I identify as exempt from all this nonsense, and that I declare the word 'woman' to have been socially reconstructed and evolved back to meaning adult human female as of 5.27pm this evening. Pandas are now small tables, and I am the Duchess of Malfi btw.