The Scottish Government and its enforced policies of trans inclusion

[ChristinaXYZ]

Gordon Dangerfield Scottish Solicitor Advocate writes:

"The Scottish Government and its enforced policies of “trans inclusion”

The court’s decision in the For Women Scotland case is in my view a defeat of catastrophic proportions for the Scottish Government.

Just how catastrophic will only emerge as the dominoes start to tumble but the most immediate casualty must surely be the Government’s enforced “trans inclusive” funding policies, under which service organisations which are, in terms, exclusively for women must nonetheless make provision for serving biological males in order to qualify for Government funding.

If they refuse to admit biological males, as a few brave and principled organisations continue to do, they must do so without any funding from the Scottish Government and its “feminist to my fingertips” First Minister.

Well, I won’t keep you in suspense.

In my opinion, the court’s decision now confirms what some of us have suspected for a long time.

That policy is unlawful, and should be struck down if challenged."

read more

gordondangerfield.com/2022/02/19/for-women-scotland-what-their-victory-means/

Yas, min.

This is the kind of analysis I'm looking forward to reading more of.

Everytime I see another sensible ruling dismissing trans forced teaming and the redefinition of words such as women o keep hearing pink Floyd's another brick in the wal😆

Also very interested in the repercussions of this ruling.

Will be watching the census appeal closely.

This all hinges on the Tories being in power, doesn't it? If Labour got in, they'd change the definitions in the Equality Act and that would be the end of it. Unless the culture changes somehow.

yes the equality act could simply be changed. But what definition would they give for “woman”? At the moment the definition is a human biological female. Would they change it to biological females and anyone who says they are one? But how would that even work as a protected characteristic? I do think it’s becoming more apparent that the equality act has real power to curb the excesses of trans activism, and so I expect it will become a target.

@Swear

This all hinges on the Tories being in power, doesn't it? If Labour got in, they'd change the definitions in the Equality Act and that would be the end of it. Unless the culture changes somehow.

That's my worry.

@WeeBisom

yes the equality act could simply be changed. But what definition would they give for “woman”? At the moment the definition is a human biological female. Would they change it to biological females and anyone who says they are one? But how would that even work as a protected characteristic? I do think it’s becoming more apparent that the equality act has real power to curb the excesses of trans activism, and so I expect it will become a target.

Perhaps they will change the definition of disabled from

“ a person who has a physical or mental impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”

To “ a person who identifies as disabled”.

That will help a lot of people who wish to claim disability benefits.

And allow self identification for age. That will help a lot of people trying to claim pension rights. And child benefit.

I think they'd just change it to "biological females and transwomen", or maybe to "biological females who identify as female and transwomen" and then let the courts define transwomen as any man who says he's a woman and has made vague efforts - eg changed his name on some bills and uses she/her pronouns. But most men wouldn't need to do that, because of the culture of not challenging anyone. That culture would be supported by making offending a transwoman illegal, as is happening in Scotland. You can't then challenge any man, in case it turns out he is "really" a transwoman.