For Women Scotland lose legal case over definition of 'woman'

[IwantToRetire]

A JUDGE has ruled that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation that aims to ensure gender balance on public boards.

www.thenational.scot/news/23188087.women-scotland-lose-legal-case-definition-woman/

Whilst the EA says that for the provision of services sex if the criteria.

The EA is UK legislation, so surely this issue needs to be appealed to the UK supreme court. And if they agree with the Court of Session we need to step up efforts to have the legislation changed.

This is bullshit

On LBC discussion now. Lots of trans people phoning in

More on this here from about 12:15 on this page of the thread www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4671123-for-women-scotland-judicial-review-2?page=12

The Gender Recognition Act needs repealing. Stating that sex is biological in the EA is not enought.

So we get equal representation on some board or in some committee or in some occupation without, in theory, having any vulva people included at all? It's always hilarious to notice when terms such as inclusion mean its exact opposite.

Scottish judges seem entirely unaware of what it is makes a woman. That it is not a feeling in your head seems to have passed them by. Do they have wives or girlfriends? Are they women - if so, how do they know?

""She concluded that “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex and that the revised guidance issued by the Scottish Government is lawful.
In her decision, Lady Haldane wrote: “I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.""

So is she saying that sex change IS POSSIBLE then? Because that really is the question. If sex is not biological, what is it?
She seems to be saying that you can actually change your sex. Any biologist will tell you this is impossible. Are we just chucking science out of the window now?

Complete unadulterated dangerous gaslighting BOLLOCKS.

Equal representation should be based on sex not 'gender'

So 100% penis havers is fine as long as a few say they are women.

And we all know once these men are chosen to represent 'women' they won't actually be representing females at all. In fact quite the opposite, as already proven in other areas such as rape crisis.

Has been posted before, but never gets old:

(It's from 2018, which is depressing!!)

This is so confusing though.
If the EA states that sometimes men can be excluded from females spaces if there is a specific reason (I forget the actual wording) to achieve a legitimate aim, then HOW exactly will they exclude them if they are the same, LEGALLY (and apparently biologically according to the above quote I wrote) as women?
If sex is something that you can identify into, and there is NO biological basis for it, exactly HOW is the EA going to be enforced?

So if men are protected IN LAW to say they are women or female, WHAT protection is there for women hoping to use the EA as a means of excluding males from female spaces?
Not worth the paper it's written on surely?

Someone explain this to me please?

Satire has become reality in Scotland.

Surely this will go to appeal?

The judge was female.

If anyone hasn't yet seen the two relevant gov.uk petitions, please take a moment to visit the petitions board where there are threads with links

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard

Aah just read TFT and seen the quote is posted.

It's interesting that the good Lady Judge think sex includes any men who say it does, with a three month wait (given that she won't be unaware that the legislation will pass), but if I behaved as judge for three months, I'm going to guess that she wouldn't consider me a judge.

I want the judge to explain what it is that you can't become after insisting you are for 3 months. And why. Because it seems now that nothing can be off limits, if you feel oppressed enough.

That's odd, I was listening as well and I don't remember lots of trans people phoning in. One caller (Andrew) spoke on the topic but didn't say whether Andrew was trans or not.

Here's the link if anyone's interested:
www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/episodes/2zGqoyyfTgNqAMc6T6zgf1RdLt/

Starting at 00:35:00

Speaking sense: Tom Swarbrick (presenter), Rachel Hamilton MSP, Marion Calder (FWS)

Resumes at 00:49:15 with caller Andrew speaking absolute bollocks (IMO).

Marion Calder's on at 00:57:05

It isn't what the judge believes but her interpretation of the law as it currently stands.

Legally having a GRC means you have changed sex, but under the excemptions allowed in the EA where appropriate single sex services are allowed.

So nothing has changed.

Repeal the GRA.

Yep, the only thing that makes sense is to repeal the GRA, as it's a total nonsense and makes a nonsense of anything that tries to build on it (EqA, GRR etc). I'll repeat Errol's suggestion of paying the petitions board a visit...

Hooty even before this ruling, I had similar questions about how (in practice) you can legally exclude a TW with a GRC from e.g. female roles, even with the exemptions in the EqA.

Say my brother gets a GRC and then rocks up to the doors of the rape crisis centre to apply for a job reserved for a "woman". Now, it may be perfectly obvious to the recruiter that he's male - he may have done nothing whatsoever to look female, still has his male voice, kept his dangly bits etc. - but if he SAYS he's a woman and has a legal document saying so as evidence, then on what basis can they refuse him for being the wrong sex? They are not allowed to ask whether he has a GRC, so have no way of proving that his "female" birth cert was obtained via the GRA, rather than at birth - so what are they meant to do? They can hardly start asking for DNA tests can they (and would probably be at risk of discrimination claims if they tried, as legally he "is a woman", and they wouldn't ask any "other woman" to do one!), nor reject him for his 5 o'clock shadow or being 6ft9, when he has a birth cert "proving" he's female. So it seems to me that even before this ruling (which certainly complicates things further), their hands would potentially be tied just by the GRA itself!

The Sex Matters newsletter prickled my brain (below in bold)... why does the absence of the word "biological" mean that the legislation is referring to "legal" sex, when the word "legal" is also absent? By her own logic, shouldn't the absence of the word "legal" mean we can't assume that's what the legislation intended?

Lady Haldane ruled that:

“the founding principle [of the Gender Recognition Act] is a broad one, that the acquired gender becomes the person’s sex ‘for all purposes’ subject to any other enactments, or the statutory exceptions listed.” [47]

Her judgment states:

“In the first place, the word ‘biological’ does not appear in the definition. It would have been entirely open to the drafters of the legislation to put the matter beyond doubt by including that adjective or descriptor, but they did not.” [49]

She concludes that:

“in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.” [53]

I think that's exactly the problem. Badly drafted bills then lead to legal challenges.

So this is a Judge using Judge like logic on the wording rather than is it workable, is it fair.

I think the catchall is ‘for all purposes’ which is why it was then necessary to draw up excemptions for the EA because it was recognised that ‘for all purposes’ was not justifiable when there is a need for single sex services.

Which to my mind is saying we know you dont change sex but we will be nice as pretent that you do, but we know that you cant pretend that in relation to single sex services and health provision, so really we know we have created a legal fiction.