The Times: Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent

[ResisterRex]

Begins:

"UK ministers are willing in principle to take the unprecedented step of blocking a bill passed by Holyrood after receiving legal advice on Nicola Sturgeon’s contentious gender recognition reforms.

Informed sources say that Rishi Sunak’s administration has the political appetite to intervene in the controversy over self-ID, opting for direct action to deny the Scottish parliament royal assent rather than referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

It follows concern about possible risks posed to safe spaces for girls and women by cutting the waiting time for legally changing gender, making the option available to 16-year-olds and eliminating the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

More here:

Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9864f1e4-8ea9-11ed-a321-77184a1c82e4?shareToken=9342e07f5c59124eb13d7c1a93f40d5ee_

I am quite baffled why for instance women in Scotland haven't taken the Lady Haldane ruling to challenge the SNP

Because the Bill isn't even in place, yet. If it does go ahead, there will be legal challenges.

They always have. If they hadn't why would they have included the need for SSE.

That is partly why Stonewall etc. have been so sucessful. Not just with their campaign re TWAW but being able to persuade organisations, eg GG and others that TW should count as women. Because the SSE actually indicate there are only a very few occasions when women are actually just biological females. ie the law has been saying women you dont have any sex based rights other than in a very few isntances which have to justify asking for.

Sorry hit post too soon.

That's why for so long many of us didn't realise how the GRA had taken away our rights. It was only over time as we saw more and more places where we had automatically assumed women only meant biological females only, that it became clear how much had been taken from us.

And that men had been given the power to deny our reality.

Because the Bill isn't even in place, yet. If it does go ahead, there will be legal challenges.

The existing provisions re SSE have existing since 2010(?) when the EA was revised. And the right to use them has existed since then. The ruling by Lady Haldane just re-inforces that that right exists.

And if in recent years the SNP has used funding as a means to tell women they will only get money if they are trans inclusive the SSE are basis on which to challenge that.

The reference to Lady Haldane is that in case anyone had been led to believe they didn't exist she has confirmed that they do.

They always have. If they hadn't why would they have included the need for SSE.

Well it's what the whole case was about wasn't it so there was obviously some dispute over that or there wouldn't have been a case in the first place.

Well I dont know what they hoped to achieve with the court case, because as far as I know it has always been that.

Maybe they hoped that Lady Haldane would go these two laws conflict and it needs to be sorted out and referred it back to the UK Hight Court or Parliament

I wouldn't have thought that a Scottish Court could give a ruling that would then apply to the UK as a whole.

All she did is say how the law works now.

All she did is say how the law works now.

Well yes that’s how court cases work. But if it was as straight forward as you are making out they wouldn’t have bothered trying would they. It’s great that you are so clear on how the law works but I’ve read numerous articles from feminist lawyers who all have slightly different interpretations on how the GRC interacts with the EA and until there are cases to clarify the law it’s difficult to know exactly what things actually mean.

Signalbox

I am not clear on the law, I am merely saying what was explained to me. ie the clue is in the fact that they had to create exemptions once the realised what the implications were in saying for all purposes.

And as I said, maybe another Judge would have stuck their neck out and said yes its a mess, this should be clarified.

Because the Bill isn't even in place, yet. If it does go ahead, there will be legal challenges.

Are their specific references to the EA in the new Scottish GRR? I haven't read it nor seen anyone mention it. If there are then that would be different, but cant think that prior to the Bill going to the vote someone didn't say Scotland cant opt out of the UK EA.

Shame that FWS didn't get advice from the person who explained it to you they could have saved so much time and money.

Well maybe who ever briefed FWS thought that any sane person, even a judge would say the two bills are contradictory and need to be revised.

Or thought it was possible to interpret another way.

What I posted is how I was told the 2 acts are said to work together, and if this is true, then all the Judge did was confirm that.

But it really does show how little women's rights are considered. Just collatoral damage as usual.

@IwantToRetire @Signalbox that court case wasn’t about the SSEs, it was about what sex/woman meant in relation to other aspects of the EA. The judge confirmed that in the EA your sex is your legal sex, not necessarily your biological sex. However, she also confirmed (as an aside, even though it wasn’t what the case was about) that that didn’t prevent the SSEs being used to exclude trans people with a GRC.

Yes I think we both understand that was what the case was about. But IWantToRetire (I think) is saying that it was completely obvious what the law is in relation to the meaning of sex in the EA and therefore the outcome was predictable whereas I am saying that it wasn’t obvious and needed to be clarified.

Quite.

The only thing that judgement really stated was that sex now means many things, in various contexts, it's not possible to pin down, and no one now really knows whether or not the execeptions will/can still work and there is such as thing as sex based protections.

Essentially it confirmed the law is now such an unholy mess that not even a judge can really explain it, and it doesn't really work for women as it was intended to.

In essence, this means that the GRA and women's rights cannot both exist, the whole mess is now beyond redemption due to all the finagling done by the TQ+ lobby, and it's time to start repealing bad law.

The point is, they wouldn't have added the exemptions if they hadn't always intended that "for all purposes" it meant that having a GRC meant you had become the other sex. The when someone pointed out the issue of the need for single sex spaces and services they didn't sit down and think oh that's not right, maybe we should change the wording ie exclude for all purposes. Insteand they just thought oh its women they'll just put up with it, but if they ask for it (ie reversing what should be obvious and a right into something to negotiate) we will provide "exemptions" from the for all purposes.

It just shows the status of women in the mind of law makers that they didn't for instance write that for all purposes sex meant sex, but there would be exemptions for those with a GRC to get married as though the other sex.

Maybe the purpose of the court case in Scotland was to create a precedent. And as I said before maybe another Judge faced with the stupidity of it would have said, yes there is a conflict or women are being denied natural justice, but in this instance she went by existing practice. ie the court case change nothing.

So either scrap the GRA/R or ammend the EA to says sex means biological sex.

Maybe the purpose of the court case in Scotland was to create a precedent. And as I said before maybe another Judge faced with the stupidity of it would have said, yes there is a conflict or women are being denied natural justice, but in this instance she went by existing practice. ie the court case change nothing.

AFAIK Judges can only interpret the current law. They can't say "that's a stupid law" or "this creates a conflict" therefore I'm going to make a different decision. The court case was only ever going to clarify what the law is currently. Sometimes judges get it wrong and it can be appealed but they can't just make a decision based on the fact that they think the law is stupid.

Think I am going round in circles here. She could have differently interpreted what "all purposes mean" or she could have raised it as an issue that was impossible to decide because the workding of the act was so bad.

I suspect we are talking at crossed purposes. I'll leave it there for now I'm obviously failing to get my point across successfully. We agree on the fact it's a shit law at least :D

Exactly. This is the problem. Stonewall law has been so widely disseminated that some organisations, businesses and employers actually think they are breaking the law by providing sex-segregated spaces or services. That's why the EA2010 should additionally be amended to make provision of single sex spaces all but mandatory with no exceptions for people with GRCs. Third spaces where possible, creative solutions where space/cost does not permit separate provision, of course. Service/space provider also liable for any harm caused by breach of regs. And repeal the GRA.

Agree again. It's madness. This is what you get when you import fiction into law.

Date of issue of the certificate? Ir it's younger than the person holding it?