For Women Scotland win appeal (Public Boards definition of 'woman')

[IsitM]

Original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4221457-For-Women-Scotland-judicial-review-appeal?msgid=106576116

Details to follow...

@GibbonsGoatsGibbons

Does this "The reassignment was the common factor of the protected characteristic, not the sex into which the person reassigned." confirm that that the comparator w.r.t. discrimination against TW is male? I.e. not discrimination if you exclude all males but possibly discrimination to exclude all males except the TW ones?

I think so yes. It has often been argued that this is the case, but nice to see it confirmed by a judge...

Following the creation of the concept of legal sex, it is a basic necessity to be precise about which concept of sex is relevant to this positive action. And that is biological sex.

That does however tend to result in this political movement turning the dial to Batshit Mark 3 and insisting that female is anything, can't be defined, biological males are biological females and no one can prove it (in order to permit female people to retain any spaces/resources of their own)

The answer to this and the only answer, the end point, is 'no'. There is going to have to be the point of 'no'. And the meltdown will be epic, and the longer the lawmakers try to avoid it the worse it will be when they're forced to.

💃💃💃💃💃💃 fucking awesome 👏

@DomesticatedZombie

The protected characteristics are separate and distinct. Being a trans woman explicitly does not mean you also hold the protected characteristic of being a woman.

So TWANW.

Great work FWS. Things are finally getting clearer. But so much energy and time is taken up going to court. But we have to keep going to get this dangerous nonsense packing.

www.scotsman.com/must-read/feminists-win-court-appeal-after-legal-challenge-over-the-word-woman-3575179

This is fantastic. Let's hope the FCA lawyers take note and stop including males in the definition of women.

I'm sceptical of the merits of these quotas and targets/gender pay gap statistics, but if they exist, they should at least be based on sex.

Well, this is great news.

But it doesn't half demonstrate how messy this topic is legally, given that we keep getting one judge saying your sex can be the opposite sex if you feel it should be, and then the following day another judge says No, your sex is your actual sex.

Great news. We'll done FWS!

oooh

the definition of woman adopted in the legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

they even remembered women who identify as men, who normally get overlooked. it's a jolly good point actually that nothing was done about increasing their representation on boards

I wonder why not?

@CharlieParley

Interesting that they've had to use the word "biological" to ram it home that they do, in this instance, mean an actual female person.

That's because the GRA 2004 created a category of legal sex that could differ from a person's biological sex. This judgement concerns positive action (which is really a form of lawful discrimination) as a remedy for disadvantages suffered by women on the basis of their sex. Following the creation of the concept of legal sex, it is a basic necessity to be precise about which concept of sex is relevant to this positive action. And that is biological sex.

That means a GRC is irrelevant in instances where single sex exemptions apply?

Because 'biological sex' is not changed by a GRC.

TWANW, indeed. And never will or can be, regardless of the GRA, GRC, etc.

@Hoardasurass

Wow that is some read but could some tell me if I've got the just of this right. When it talks about it being reasonable to aim for a 50% representation farther than 95% is fair for sex but not for other characteristics (having mentioned transsexuals just before and conflating sex and gender reassignment) and saying that each characteristic must be assessed separately a legal speak warning to scot gov that the 1% of trans peoples rights cannot Trump the rights of the 99% of people? Or have I got that wrong

Yes, it says that each protected characteristic is to be assessed separately and what is proportionate for one protected group may not be proportionate for another.

That makes sense. We know that women are around 50% of the population so 50% could be a proportionate figure for women on boards whereas 95% wouldn't be.

But I don't see how you can assume the group protected by gender reassignment is 1% - or indeed any specific percentage - of the population, as the definition is very wide and includes anyone who is undergoing or proposing to undergo a process, as well as those who have undergone it.

Thank you to For Women Scotland. I hope they don't appeal it and leave it at that.

It obviously is important in itself. I'm not sure if the law on public representation will no longer stand at all (& they'll have to re-draft) or if it will stand except that when counting board members tw will not count as women. But I'm sure it's most important thing is as a building block, piecing together judgements that explain that sex matters in law, that it's different from gender reassignment, and that the two should not be conflated. Thos one seems to say that a trans woman without a grc has the protected characteristic of the male sex, with the addition of the pc of gender reassignment.

Brilliant! Lovely to see some common sense...

Well done women in Scotland!

If they are only covered by the sex pc in their birth sex they are not entitled to opposite sex spaces ever by this ruling and you wouldn't be allowed a 'single sex' space that includes some men but not others based on the pc of gender reassignment.

There do seem to be slightly different rules for positive discrimination and perhaps that is what we are seeing

I've only just seen that on Reporting Scotland ( who ironically seem to have jumped on the trans bandwagon just as the wheels are starting to fall off) and actually punched the air. I had to rewind just to check I heard right.

Here in Wales we're raising a glass of Ardbeg to the women of Scotland, tonight. This is great news and let's hope it stops the SNP in its tracks and forces them to confront the completely untenable situation they've created.

This is such a lot of work for women who get no government funding

Thank you so much from women in Scotland

You lot rock

Congratulations on a well-deserved victory, FWS

In The Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8ffe5c36-910f-11ec-9569-fea923928840?shareToken=44c3a27228223e079cfa3b6b0530a47d

Thankyou milady.

Doffs cap to Milady

"A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “We are disappointed by the outcome and are considering its terms.” Ha! The usually suspects are absolutely silent on Twitter too can only assume they're awaiting approved wording

@DomesticatedZombie

The protected characteristics are separate and distinct. Being a trans woman explicitly does not mean you also hold the protected characteristic of being a woman.

In light of this, I think it's time that the mantra TWAW is retired. It should be banned from being uttered anywhere.

Incidentally, I found this & thought it was worth posting so people could see how the Scottish Parliament could get it so wrong - 1st link is to a session at Stage 1 of the GRPB bill with a representative from Engender & Women 50/50. Talat Yaqoob was a big part of why the GRPB bill came into existence & she outlines in her session how she (note - not women in general, but she/women 50:50) supports the Equality Network's position on ensuring that mechanism to improve women's representation doesn't exclude males who self ID as women Link to Scottish Parliament recording - it's at approx 38 1/2 mins in.

Following on from that, here's the session with James Morton of STA giving their stance on the bill, asking for a specific definition to be included so as to not place any barrier on males who self ID as women, but also to exclude females who don't ID as women. Link to Scottish Parliament recording - starts at about 6 1/2 mins, and at 9 mins, that's where JM lays out the requirements of STA to have the bill specifically include males who self ID as women, but exclude females who don't ID as women.

What JM/STA asked for was pretty much what they got, which we now know was unlawful. But, as is the way with Scotgov, they simply acquiesced instead of actually checking the legality of this (or did check but still thought it was arguably feasible).

I think that it's also worth highlighting that, in the 1st round of the legal challenge, En/STA were given permission to intervene & part of that included statements from males who identify as women, on how they were intending to apply to join a number of public boards. The mechanism that STA managed to get included (unlawfully) in the bill was the vehicle for more males to join boards, at the expense of opportunities for women. I can't tell you how delighted I am that this gerrymandering of women's rights & legal protections (especially in mechanisms to encourage more equal female representation) has finally been halted.

Cheers to FWS🍾🥂

That’s fascinating @TensionWheelsCooIHeels and infuriating! Females with a trans identity should absolutely be included in the numbers.