For Women Scotland Judicial Review 2

[Signalbox]

For Women Scotland Judicial Review: mentioned today in the Times. I didn't realise that this was happening this week on 9th and 10th November according to FWS website...

forwomen.scot/01/09/2022/impact-of-second-judicial-review/

We have a petition for judicial review pending, averring that this revised guidance is not compliant with the court’s decision and is therefore unlawful. The Scottish Government has repeated its earlier error in law by incorporating transsexuals living as women (albeit now restricted to those who hold a GRC) into the definition of woman, thus conflating and confusing two protected characteristics. The Scottish Government has declined to remove the section referring to the GRA and have indicated that it is their understanding that a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Whether they believe a person’s biological sex changes on receipt of a GRC or whether they now dispute that the Equality Act refers to biological sex remains to be seen.

Permission has been granted for the judicial review and the substantive hearing date has been set for 9th and 10th November 2022.

We believe this case puts the Committee in a very difficult position as, until such time as the court makes a ruling, the proper relationship between the GRA and the Equality Act cannot be understood, and nor can the consequences of any legislative reform of the GRA.

If the Scottish Government is correct that a person’s sex changes in the Equality Act with a GRC then it follows that the statement to Committee by Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison, that the GRR Bill “does not redefine what a man or a woman is”, is incorrect. Clearly, if men who hold a GRC (transwomen) are included in the definition of woman (and women who hold a GRC (transmen) are excluded), then changing the circumstances under which a person is entitled to a GRC will also have the effect of changing the definition of woman.

The GRR Bill proposes a significant change to the eligibility criteria for a GRC and will include, for the first time, those without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and those aged 16 and 17. The Scottish Government also estimates a tenfold increase in applications for a GRC. This diversification and expansion of GRC holders from the current situation will significantly change who is counted under the definition of woman.

Whether a person is defined as a man or a woman matters for the successful operation of the Equality Act across a broad range of provisions, including single-sex exceptions, equal pay claims and access to maternity rights, and we are concerned that this is underappreciated and poorly understood by the Scottish Government. It is, of course, vitally important because any action taken by the Scottish Parliament must be careful not to modify any of the protected characteristics, including the definition of woman, lest it strays into reserved matters.

The Scottish Government seems hopelessly confused and inconsistent when it comes to the definition of woman, with at least three different definitions currently in operation across various pieces of legislation and policy. Contrary to the position outlined above, it fully understood that sex was biological when SNP MSPs voted in favour of the Lamont amendment to substitute gender with sex in the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) Bill to ensure a request for a female medical examiner resulted in the provision of exactly that, and not a man with a GRC (transwoman).

At the other extreme, the Cabinet Secretary again contradicted the Scottish Government’s current position by asserting a GRC is not required for a man to fall under the definition of woman and access single-sex services for that sex, when she said to Parliament that “the 2010 Act does not apply exceptions specifically to toilets and changing rooms. Trans people can and do use those now, whether they have a GRC or not, and they have been using them for many years.” This fails to recognise the single-sex mandates in legislation relating to schools and workplaces as well as specific examples in the Equality Act Explanatory Notes – we have written separately to you about this matter.

A recent Scottish Government public consultation on the Review of Funding and Commissioning of Violence Against Women and Girls Services redefined a woman as “anyone who defines themselves as a woman”. Not only does this circular statement flagrantly disregard the Inner House ruling but it fails to recognise funding for women’s services can only be allocated via positive action measures in s158 of the Equality Act so must adhere to the protected characteristics. Our letters to both the review group and the Scottish Ministers asking for the consultation to be withdrawn and reissued with a correction have not received any response. We further note the Scottish Government only accepts applications for funding from individual women’s services on production of a LBTI inclusion policy that is transwomen inclusive. Again, this is not dependent on holding a GRC.

In summary, we believe the revised statutory guidance for the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act is unlawful. The Scottish Government believe otherwise and maintain a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Not only does this decouple women’s biological sex from sex-specific provisions in the Equality Act, but it means reforming the GRA also carries a serious risk of intruding on reserved matters. The Scottish Government has a history of inconsistency and lack of understanding on both the definition of woman and the operation of the Equality Act. All of this leaves the Committee exposed, trying to make good law in the midst of a live court action, the outcome of which materially affects the reform.

Thanks just started reading now.

Thanks, Signal (and tribunal tweets). Doing a great job on the tweeting.

@ tribunaltweets
twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1590299381567062016

AN: on their reading trans men forfit their rights to sex protection. 'now I've got my GRC, because of the sex to which I'm identifying, there's a reduction in rights under the law previously granted to me'

J: mechanism for obtaining a GRC holds a declaration to live in acquired gender until death?
will be living until death in acquired gender. is that relevant?

AN: yes. getting a GRC is intended to be a serious permanent step. not pick up and take off as it suits.

AN: tho there is case Bell V Tavi and detrans regret. but as with FM case, forfeited protection. and I say 'fairly' not. if we just stuck to the straightforward meaning in
EA. e.g. pregnant woman does not refer to GRC or GRA those are separate. You don't lose as a pregnant man

AN: back to phrase TWAW. one of the basic gramattical problems. Black women, Gay women, Trans women. saying Trans is an adjective. It's not an adjective. you have different types of women. but trans doesn't do that grammatically. it's a prefix. it changes the root word into

something else.

AN: e.g. 'Verse' - prefixes transverse, perverse,

e.g. port - transport, preport - are not different desciptions of ports
the diff btw trans and an adjective like black.
tomboys are not boys. it is a prefix describing girls. their biology remains the same

AN: that leads me to the issue of sex and gender
In FWS case and FPFW case
J: distinction courts have grappled with for years
AN: yes. it's a slippery distinction. under contemporary informed approach there is a diff btw gender 'social expectations of feminine and masculine'

AN: and sex. the difference between sex and gender (apologise I'm a man explaining!)
J: let me be the judge of that!
AN: alright! take example where HoL said any person graduating must mean a man.
Legal restrictions against women were dismantled.

AN: biological determinism said you can't be a women doing those things in society. this case is about biological denialism.

AN: [reads passage from Canada] we lead women's lives, we have no choice. this is about unquestionable biological difference. how much to rearing,
society. women have fought bitterly against sex discrimination but know what is a woman and a man. Gender dysphoriacompletely difft

AN: look at FPFW case definitions. it all depends on context. sometimes it means bio sex sometimes gender. but it is a legal question. generalities are not enough. the 'legal sex' concept which the SG has invented incl. bio men with GRC.

AN: FPFW tab 4, para 20-23 page 55. there is no international definition of the word sex so much be given it's ordinary meaning.
'sex' based on bio sex must be accepted
AN: Bellinger - q is correct construction, of matrimony causes act, of sex. context is everything

AN: marriage case Yorkshire. submited marriage is a legal status affecting rights, pensions, housing.

AN: other cases. rigid defn of sex. Tan v Tan, being a male was relevant in a rape case.

AN: limitations of biology carried over 2 a GRC. it will not bulldoze defn of legal sex

AN: many circumstances where bio sex not appropriate. e.g. applying for passport with non gender X.
that is part of common usage in the Oxford English dictionary. among popular usage, behavioural characteristics

AN: Census act 1920, the court found public facing document can have ordinary language approach not noticing distinctions between sex and gender. interpreted to popular meaning. not where matter of status and rights may be an issue

AN: sometimes status and rights are affected by bio sex, sometimes not. there is no universal legal definition of sex. the meaning of sex is context dependent. there are causes where bio sex must be adopted. and rights of others can demand bio sex be applied. and..

AN: may be necessary to apply sex even with holder of GRC
It is context dependent.

the context in this case is the EA2010. It is an act to harmonise characteristics. it is not a straightforward consolidation act.

Thank you for copying the tweets over, following with interest!

I'm sure FM is thrilled they are being referred to in this JR. Thanks *Signalbox" for providing this content.

@ tribunaltweets

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1590305379824865286

AN: the sex discrimination Act. seeking to codify and rectify in one statue competing provisions has to be read within its four corners.
The SG and EHRC refer to it improperly.

AN: [reads out more examples of legislation related to sex discrim].
European court new provisions, Sex discrim Act, Race Act, Disability Act, GRA, other regulations... they informed the interpretation while we were still members of the EU. Luckily this court no longer needs

AN: this court only needs Sex discrimination ACT and it's all four corners.

AN: [reads judgement of a case] Lord C said we don't need all the bills to determine. My Lords I cannot bring myself to believe... a statue treated this way will be destroyed. Must determine language

AN: the first step is to determine the language of the statue. that's not a 19th century obsolete approach.

AN: the court has to answer the Q on the basis of the actual language in the EA2010. what does it actually say? no need to go back to the Sex discrim act or other acts

AN: the question then, using phrase from FPFW case, the terms “man” and “woman” and “sex” whenever used throughout the EA 2010 as being restricted to a specialist, restricted definition based on biological sex.
J: asks Q other bills
AN: no indication that one has pick and choose

AN: using EA means a single source applied to sex discrim, GRA and other bills. what one cannot do is say we're going to confuse GRA with sex when it comes to those with GRC's. that would run contrary to the EA
J: in every context where EA applies, sex must always be sex?

AN: yes
J: no exceptions?
AN: no. set out by parliament. if GRA implicated look at GRA provisions. I tried to do it myself where I argued sexual orientation discrimination was already covered by sex discrimination and it was a very odd discussion. the issue was sex discrim

J: we don't need to trouble ourselves as prior legislation
AN: yes the law has caught up. the law no applies to ppl who are gay and ppl who are not gay. We don't have to do it. the legislature has cleared up matters.

AN: section 11 of EA, woman is female of any age. this was in FWS 1st JR. Sex is male or female. provisions for women in context of this definition excludes those who are male.

AN: These cases [reads] show that GRC and sex cannot be combined.

J: I confess I've read this passage several times. it anticipates perhaps the issue before us. it does say that neither case ... a Trans person presenting as a woman can go no further, not a woman. defined terms

J: protected characteristic of GRC is limited. one reading of that might be the Inner House Scotland recognises GRC does not fall into the sex v gender argument.

AN: the impt thing ab this act is that no where does EA ref GRC. GRC's are a subset of Gender reassignment & covered

AN: GRC is a subset of GRA. there are limited ways of getting a certificate.
GRA is a distinct characteristic in the EA. The Scot Inner House has taken this GRA characteristic (reads)

[observers unmuted disrupting]
J: asks observers to mute.
repeat again. I'm lost

AN: I'm lost too.
AN: EHRC said get around the decision, although TW not a category call a woman if has GRC. It confuses two characteristics - sex and GRA. it means that those who are biologically women who have taken out a GRC will not benefit from measures intended to provide

[Bit confusing... presumably this ref to "sex and GRA" means sex and gender reassignment??]]

AN: opportunity despite menstruation, pregnancy and biological facts affecting women in the workplace. on this reading bio women with GRC are excluded from the laws intended for structural discrimination associated with biological women

AN: the Inner House has expressly and unequivocally ruled that, just in the context of the EA 2010 definition of sex and of “woman” and of “man”,
a specialist, restricted definition based on biological sex has to be applied in the understanding and application of the EA 2010 PC

AN: EA approach: to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrim and harassmnt related to certain personal characteristics; to increase equality of opportunity and for connected purposes.

Thanks for transcript

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63568047

@ tribunaltweets

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1590314380583133185

AN: you can claim race discrim even if you are white. And there was sexual orientation discrimination case by a straight man who was teased and subject to slurs and bullying expressed in homophobic terms in the workplace. A male perceived to be a woman could bring a case

AN: A man could claim for sex discrimination despite being a man based on assumptions that he was a woman - e.g. if he used a women's name.
AN: that's part of the EA2010 being comprehensive across discrimination scenarios

AN: Sexual orientation as understood is about attraction to biological sex not gender assumptions. But if the SG ministers are right, a gay person is attracted to a GRC. this is one of the absurdities

J: undoubtedly difficult area. bio male attracted to another male person and that person is born bio female, has GRC, had surgery, looks male. if the bio male attracted is that sexual orientation of same sex?

AN: No
J: surgery everything, with GRC saying they are male. only one of those under sexual orientation provisions?
AN: this is one of the issues of bio males id as lesbian attracted to women

J: it is impermissible to conflate GRA and sex as far as EA is concerned....
AN: there are examples in Scotland and England of gender fraud, going to bed, later on, not sex they say they are, criminal behaviour
J: will leave with you. don't need answer now

AN: pregnancy and maternity express characteristic in EA. all ref are made to women. effectively P&M sub cat of bio sex.

AN: if a person discrim against a woman because she's given birth and is breastfeeding, that is clearly a ref to bio sex. it makes perfect sense. but if SG are correct and case of FM, FM would not be able to, if discrim against beause of his pregnancy, be able to claim objections...

afforded to women
Suddently all those protections no longer available to a cat of biological women because they have a GRC. Now is that the intention to blow a hole thru rights? what about children? it is absurd

AN: [reads from EA2010 protected characteristic maternity rights] can only be applied to women
J: could FM claim these protections as a woman? actually scrap that not a good example
AN: a woman remains a bio woman for purposes of EA notwithstanding GRC, doesn't take away his

AN: protections afforded during pregnancy.

AN: a person discrim against another if they treat them less favourably.
If the protected characteristic is sex—
(a) less favourable treatment of a woman includes less favourable treatment of her because she is breast-feeding;

AN: If FM is a man
(b) in a case where FM is a man, no account is to be taken of special treatment afforded to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.
It actively excludes that
A big black hole on EHRC reading

AN: under my reading, FM would not be excluded. FM would be protected as afforded by childbirth
in my reading biological sex preserves GRA, whereas SG is taking away from women notably in pregnancy and maternity.

AN: In my reading rights are protected. In respondents reading it does the opposite.

AN: On the SG reading (of the EA), those who benefit from measures are women w/o GRC and biological men with a GRC. this is Not what was meant for special provision under the act

• proportionate means for a legitimate aim.

AN: structural causes in a patriarchal society. a GRC is not a get out of jail free card for women. it is misleading and unjust to say a GRC fixes that issue, solves that problem for young women. We know there has been a rapid change in approach to GRA. Stats in Bell V Tavi

AN: rapid rise in young women IDing as opposite gender. that can be seen as a response to discrimination women face but doesn't answer it by getting a GRC.

AN: Single sex safe spaces, women's refuge, rape crisis because it is women, whether or not they have a GRC, who remain victims of that discrimination and ill treatment in our society. the EA recognises that by allowing 4 single sex services.

AN: it will not be sex discrim to provide a single sex service in a hospital or another establishment with special provision or where physical contact takes place. those concepts of single sex services can only be understood by strict biological sex

AN: clearly there are issues in returning to work covered by EA. specifically related to women.

These are important. must provide answer to issues around structural discrim even in the face of formal equality, still in a patriarchal society.

AN: SG sayif there is any doubt as to this, it is answered by references to woman and man in the sex and human rights act. Well yes but biological women are a human rights matter as well. SG duties to respect privacy, dignity and decency. if the EHRC is correct & it's 'legal sex'

... a hospital would be guilty of sex discrimination if they provided single sex wards. (under SG and EHRC interpretation of EA)
AN: the GRC bars them from coming in single sex. whereas 'legal sex' opens the door

AN: I anticipate the response will be 'oh no that's not the case'. see schedule 3 para 28 of EA2010. separate provisions of the sexes. that says there can be lawful gender reassignment discrim if proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. BUT by SG redefining sex, they

AN: SG say provision of single sex services is bio women without GRC and Bio men with a GRC, for the purposes of single sex services.
J: hospital would be saying bio women with GRC excluded

AN: Yes because they're not women. the hospital has to undergo double discrimination

J: on your hypothesis, the hospital excluding a person who may look like a man a female with GRC is not allowed in
AN: not only that. separate sex has to include men with GRC and exclude women with GRC. ludicrous nature when you drill down

AN: women with GRC don't get in the door at all. biological men with GRC get into the ward because they are legally women. bio women who transition but don't have GRC can get into the ward.
Even being able to spell this out can you imagine what it's like a for hospital nurse?

AN: EA means ALL bio women can be accommodated in one ward. insofar as there are difficulties, those with gender reassignment could be (missed) but no biological men get in.
FM [Freddy McConnell] can get into obstetrics. SG say he cannot

AN: A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a TW with a certificate, to avoid causing her further distress. example of proportionate response.

Difficulty in how that example can fit in to how SG/EHRC define sex. TW can be a rape counsellor..

so you are discriminating against the other woman. accusing her of transphobia if not accepting TW rape counsellor.

AN: In EA you only provide services to one sex.

AN: bio women victims of rape, in that context we do not want a bio man to be the rape counsellor. but according to SG/EHRC that service would not be for one sex, not provided.
as soon as you drill in you fall into the rabbit hole, Alice in Wonderland

J: only avoid rabbit hole if?
AN: if you use biological sex on a single sex basis. not allowable on SG/EHRC definition.the explanatory notes to the EA 2010 and the EA 2010 provisions themselves only make sense if the “sex” continues to be seen as and only as a biological

reference distinct from issues around gender reassignment.

how you use words across the act EA vs EHRC reading. FPFW case important for rights of women. SG poorly done with no biological protections. any other reading is a nonsense. an impossible task for hospital administrator

AN: it's also a minefield for lawyers which is not what was intended
AN: Next. Does a GRA make a difference? can you substitute into the act whereever the Act uses sex?
J: we're coming onto an important (missed)

J: break for lunch. back at 1:50pm
All rise
Morning ends

LUNCH TIME!

Sounds like much sense being talked there.

Please let the judge be a rational person.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1590280827967279105.html

Morning session all in one go!

Afternoon tweets start here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1590342343365783552

I'm missing the usual analysis we get on these threads. Maybe everyone is catching up on the work they missed yesterday by watching the LGBA Tribunal?!

It's all making sense but I'm wondering if there's any deliberate angle by talking so much about transmen who get pregnant. It's refreshing to hear transmen being mentioned - I guess it's just flagging up the least obvious consequences and impacts of the SG making up their own rules/interpretations? It's just not thought through or the consequences on females don't matter to them?

It's refreshing to hear transmen being mentioned - I guess it's just flagging up the least obvious consequences and impacts of the SG making up their own rules/interpretations? It's just not thought through or the consequences on females don't matter to them?

I've been wondering about this too. It'll be really interesting to hear the SG response to the argument that if TW (with a GRC) AW for the purposes of the EA that means TM (with a GRC) AM for the purposes of the EA and therefore any laws that are aimed at the protection of bio women will not include TM.

I can't imagine how they will defend this point and I feel like I know their arguments fairly well. Presumably that is because they never really concern themselves with TM's rights and protections, just how TW can access spaces reserved for female people.

Also AN is talking straightforward common sense so there's not much to comment on. The judge doesn't seem to be giving AN too much of a hard time so fingers crossed she has not been captured. Perhaps there'll be more to comment on tomorrow when the SG start to defend their position.

@ tribunal tweets

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1590342343365783552

Hearing recommences.

AN: What difference does the GRA make? Re single sex spaces many orgs in public sector in Scot have trans inclusive spaces. There is inclusion in normally single sex spaces inc anyone who identifies as the sex for the SSS. Such spaces regardless would not

count as single sex spaces (sss). When we say sss this has no impact on the trans inclusive policies which exist. FWS says these are mixing sex and gender identity.The issue of discrimination re sss. The trans inclusive spaces are not included in this

Therefore it is not unlawful for trans inclusive spaces (TIS). Re the EHRC Scottish ministers claim that a GRC make a difference and changes the sex of the person who gets it. The consequence is that biological women with the GRC are not included with women without one

On to whether the GRA makes a difference. My lady asked what difference it makes between biological sex and those with a GRC. You could ask what diff a birth certificate makes - who ask for one.

J: it is an important document
AN: it is and it has an important function

J: it tells you who you are
AN: yes. You should not minimise the symbolism of such a document. Symbols matter and mean something to you and/or to the wider world. The issuing of a GRC will still have an important symbolic value. It means that someone can enter in marriage in

their identified gender rather than into a same sex marriage
AN: [cites Belcher case]. When you have a GRC it is mooted that there should be a deathbed GRC in case of imminence of death, a person can be recognised as the opposite sex in death if they choose.

J: It has huge significance but I am wondering how far this can go. You can marry someone in your acquired gender. If you were a man with a GRC you can marry a man
AN: you can now anyway
J: I accept point of symbolism

AN: [cites case re B&B owners who refused a double room to a gay couple]. The judgement said civil partnerships carry the same rights and status as marriage.
J: if you are an unmarried person and become married your status changes?
AN: yes and are protected under marriage status

J: This goes further than symbolism
AN: I agree. But now that would have been the case and yes this allows you to marry not into a same sex marriage. The symbolism shouldn't be downplayed. The concepts of marriage with a GRC is part of a bigger picture

J: like those in civil partnerships who chose to then become married when that became available
If you want legal docs you will
be required to provide birth certificate. So your status can be changed in many ways. So not just symbolism

AN: Nothing I've said takes away from that. Does a GRC change the protected characteristic of sex in the EA2010? I say no because it alters the EA2010 and changes the provisions therein re pregnancy etc for women.

In the GRA section 9, they use gender and we know this because we have looked at documents re this. A person becomes their acquired gender. They mention gender because the matrimonial act mentions male and female meaning sex.

[Note: Bellinger case not Belcher case in previous tweets]
AN: The change in the wording was changed to make sure it was compatible with the matrimonial act. The wording has been run with - meaning that gender is conflated with sex in other circumstances.

AN: Re: The joint committee on Human Rights. We see moving between sex and gender. It isn't a statute so it's helpful. Birth sex is referred to instead of biological sex.

AN: All they've said in your draughting. The primary issue is the right to marry and to amend that.

AN: we see again moving from sex to gender. This is the point about identifying the potential problem. The legislation is either cast re people's physical sex
J: are physical and biological synonymous?
AN: yes

AN: this is true of the matrimonial act and the sex discrimination act re their sex not their gender
AN: The sex discrimination/gender reassignment act resulted in regulations being made in 1999 - rulings were made so that someone under gender reassignment would be covered

with the same protections as those under the sex discrimination.
AN: we are dealing with a codified act
J: It wouldn't dilute?
AN: if anything it is strengthening.

AN: in 2010 there was a chance to make sense and harmonise everything. The rights have been set out in the act by parliament.

AN: looking at community law - this provides where a GRC is given, that person becomes the acquired gender. As we know, in the FPFW it depends on the

context. Sometimes sex means biological and sometimes can mean gender depending on the context. It is possible that courts can mean gender when they say sex depending on context.

AN: Parliament under EA2010 has made the necessary changes. Once again they suggest that the word

sex should be brought in with specific relevance re Bellinger.
J: are you saying that the implication is that when the act says woman it means biological
AN: yes absolutely
J: It says "if it is necessary to decide" - you're saying it is not necessay?
AN: correct

J: these docs can help elucidate the meaning?
AN: yes
AN: the doc is meant for parliamentarians not lawyers. It appears that with the proposed changes - refers to gender not sex - a born man who has a GRC would be treated as a woman.

They decided to see about creating other changes in the law to have this affect but parliament did not implement this
AN: Would a MTF be protected on the grounds of them being their acquired gender? In the 1975 act it should also include people into their acquired gender.

Government did not pass this. This was not done.
AN: There is nothing in the GRA that has the provision to extend the acquired gender to become sex in the law. We are dealing with the equality act not the sex discrimination act which is no longer relevant.

Yes, Judge Lady Haldane asked quite a lot of questions in the morning session - not sure if this is usual for this type of hearing or what to read into them.

Yes it's almost conversational isn't it?

I wonder if this will end up at the Supreme Court? It seems to be the thing that is most argued over with the different sides having completely different interpretations.

Well done to all these legal folk and campaigners who can tackle this stuff without getting a headache. I've just been scanning through Tribunal Tweets between meetings; the sex vs gender law is a complete mess isn't it!

I can't help thinking that some of this madness would be best presented diagrammatically in a table with columns for women, transmen with a GRC, transmen without a GRC and then vars legal rights (e.g. maternity rights, pension age etc) running down the rows.

I keep thinking of the excellent point made by the Gay Men's org on the thread yesterday in response to sex by deception: that all this in effect if it goes through as planned will have the effect of

• Creating a privileged class with more protections and support than others (most of the privileges focused on TQ+ identified biological males) in entitlement to access all spaces based on personal preference from the selection of options, regardless of sex or impact on others.

• Creating a second class of 'victims' of this, which in most cases in this situation will be biological females, who are not only affected by having lost single sex spaces which have been turned mixed sex in the illusion of some biological males being women entitled to be there, but also being actively excluded or harmed due to the presence of those males. And this impact is regardless of the behaviour the male person chooses while exercising their privilege. Many of those females will be excluded due to protected characteristics and the politics pushing this require that no other option of provision may be provided to compensate them for losing access to their only and only space because TQ+ male people may find this offensive.

How is this equality? Or just? And as the benefits in female sex based spaces are entirely to male people and entirely to the detriment of female users of that space, how is this just not flat out sex based discrimination?

Are the SG up for frankly subordinating females to males? Based on biology? While telling us that it's possible to change sex?

The whole 'but people with GRCs get special privileges and can go in female spaces' is also a red herring as it's been fully proven by now:

No one is checking on the door as to who has a GRC and who doesn't
To ask is considered unacceptable and offensive
Therefore there is an entitlement now widespread that any male who wishes, at any stage of transition or not even transitioning at all, may simple enter a female single sex space and respond negatively, which may include threateningly, to any female who dares to question their entry and their impact on other people's needs and comfort. (Please see behaviour of potential MP Izzard for illustration of this).

I know you can't tell tone from a tweet but it strikes me that the Judge might be a bit incredulous at this point.....

AN: what has changed is what the certificate is telling people about you. It is just a certificate with different information on
J: does it look like a standard birth certificate? Would anyone know the difference?
AN: I suspect not. They want to keep the GRC

private for some reason
J: If someone was presented with a birth cert, it would look the same?
AN: after a GRC it's a short form birth certificate but would say M or F...I think
AN: sex remains a biological fact but the cert says something else.
J: it's very difficult. If someone sees a birth cert - the person presenting the cert doesn't actually change sex. But the cert looks as if they have.

I think the points about women who say they are men ('transmen') are absolutely cracking points tbh. Are they to lose all their pregnancy and maternity protections? It doesn't matter how few in number they are - it's a key legal point that blows the whole nonsensical basket of fudges out of the water. It is an absurd deviation from the Equality Act 2010.

I also personally liked 'tom boys are still girls'.