Page 14 | UK Government confirms it will block Scottish GRR

GailBlancheViola · 17/01/2023 19:08

LlynTegid · 17/01/2023 17:58

Some of the arguments made in favour of changing the law could easily be covered in other ways. Death certificates by a clause allowing a declaration in your will to ask you be recorded as a woman or a man instead of what is on your birth certificate, for example.

No - neither a Birth Certificate nor a Death Certificate should ever be changed, it is a legal document and the fact that we have this ridiculous situation whereby a Birth Certificate can be changed to reflect a legal and absolute fiction is an scandal. No-one can change sex, no-one.

SinnerBoy · 17/01/2023 19:09

@MargaritaPie · Today 16:42

Your statement also stinks of transphobia by heavily implying that transpeople are somehow setting out to become sex offenders...

Here's an idea, why not try being honest? That was not what was said, rather, that trans w are statistically 5 times more likely to be sex offenders, in comparison to other men. This comes from government produced statistics.

SinnerBoy · 17/01/2023 19:11

IwantToRetire · Today 18:58

And I agree with whoever it was said earlier on today that funders should be sued if they use funding to force women's groups to be trans inclusive, because not only do the EA use the example of why rape crisis support should be single sex, but that in the instance of funding it should be proportional.

I asked that question, perhaps others have, too. Are there any lawyers with a professional opinion? If it's a possibility, it would be really good, if the idea were to reach the wider world.

GailBlancheViola · 17/01/2023 19:19

MissLawls · 17/01/2023 16:10

If I hear this most vulnerable group of people (meaning trans) one more time from those willing to sacrifice women and girls on the altar of male wants and wishes I won't be responsible for my actions.

I hear you @GailBlancheViola It's language they've been told to use by Stonewall. I've heard Starmer use it, Harman, many others. Two to three women a week are killed by men, usually their partners and, as I understand it, are most likely to be killed after they have left their abusive partner. So giving the lie to the chorus of, "Oh why doesn't she/didn't she leave him!" Not to mention that the first 12 months of someone's life is the riskiest and the time when they are most likely to be murdered, mostly by parents or close caregivers. Most abuse happens in the family. Much happens in the workplace. And some happens among those who are charged with protecting us, ie the police.

But let's talk about the most vulnerable, most marginalised, group... let's ignore all the women at risk. All the children. All the young men from knife crime. The truth is this so-called Most Marginalised Group ever is, in fact, the most privileged that ever walked the earth!

I know, I agree with you. I am also sick to the back teeth of hearing how only trans people know about being trans and should be the only ones to speak when in the next breath they claim to know all about being a woman (or a man) - no they fucking don't, stop demeaning and insulting women (and men) by claiming the first clue about what being one means when you weren't born the sex which has that knowledge and experience.

Labour Party - you caused this shit show with that utterly idiotic GRA 2004, you were warned where this would lead and yet you ignored it.

Waitwhat23 · 17/01/2023 19:23

It also seems to come down to devolved matters and reserved matters. Legislation relating to equality matters is a reserved matter. The Scottish Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018 seems not, as far as I can see, to have an equivalent in either the Welsh or English parliament. If such a bill was introduced in another area of the UK and they chose to use a different interpretation of the definition of woman (I.e. biological woman which seems to have been dismissed by Haldane mostly because it is not stated specifically in earlier legislation), then a reserved piece of legislation would be applied differently in different parts of the UK.

There's also the issue, which isn't really addressed in the judgement, that sex means assigned gender 'for all purposes' until it's not. The McConnell case determined that someone who has changed their gender is still a mother or father according to their biological sex. Haldane states that the Forensic Medical Examiners Bill allows for female examiners who are biologically female because this meaning is made clear in the legislation, and is acceptable because it is later legislation than the 2004 and 2010 acts. It suggests to me that any future legislation can be specifically worded to mean biological sex.

Waitwhat23 · 17/01/2023 19:26

Northern Ireland's government appear to have suggested targets for gender representation but I can't see if a bill has been passed.

rogdmum · 17/01/2023 19:41

Can I also add about the “most marginalised, vulnerable etc” overused phrase that I hate it because what a message to give to gender distressed young people! I DON’T want my DD thinking she’s the most marginalised etc in society. I have spent YEARS trying to give her positive messages that she is strong and can go off and do whatever she wants. WTF would I want her to perceive herself as marginalised because that’s the message society is giving to her.

it goes against everything we’ve been trying to teach her and is dangerous.

ILikeDungs · 17/01/2023 20:17

"So pleased this is finally "mainstream" news and the public are becoming aware of it."

We turned the radio off when it came up for the Nth time. Never thought l would do that, since l have been screaming for the BBC or Guardian to cover it since 2016 but hearing misunderstandings and lies and damned lies all day is wearing.

But DH said "how can l be part of this conversation when nobody allows the suggestion that maybe just maybe "trans" is not a real THING?

I get what he is saying, totally. These are troubled young people, disturbed and disturbing older men, and confused homosexuals looking for a place to belong. And maybe, that's all?

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 20:39

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

But later, the authors of the Equality Act decided to override the "for all purposes" phrasing of the GRA by creating single-sex exceptions applied on the basis of biological sex.

That part seems clear, if a bit daft.

But Lady Haldane, as I understand it, has said that "for all purposes" also applies to the Equality Act, and that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means "legal sex", not "biological sex".

So where do we draw the conclusion that the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act apply on the basis of biological sex, not legal sex?

I'm not trying to be difficult, by the way, I just don't understand.

StatisticallyChallenged · 17/01/2023 21:07

RoyalCorgi · 17/01/2023 20:39

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

But later, the authors of the Equality Act decided to override the "for all purposes" phrasing of the GRA by creating single-sex exceptions applied on the basis of biological sex.

That part seems clear, if a bit daft.

But Lady Haldane, as I understand it, has said that "for all purposes" also applies to the Equality Act, and that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means "legal sex", not "biological sex".

So where do we draw the conclusion that the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act apply on the basis of biological sex, not legal sex?

I'm not trying to be difficult, by the way, I just don't understand.

The EA single sex services exemption specifically covers gender reassignment

A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Original poster

IwantToRetire · 17/01/2023 21:08

AS said by me and others Lady Haldane gave examples of when "for all purposes" would not apply, eg medical and she said something like many others. It isn't that hard to find all this in her ruling. ie she was quoting the EA. All she did is sit in court. Check how the EA had worked in the past. And just wrote a lot of words saying nothing has changed.

Interest that on C4 news Scottish Conservative giving examples of why 2 different types of GRC would be a problem in the UK, she gave the examples of schools, and the SNP representative did the whole we still have the SSE (that they never allow groups to put into practice).

So it was a shame that they then had a clip of Elaine Miller saying it was all about trans in women's spaces.

The wholesale misrepresentation of SSE in Scotland seems to be absolute. Maybe this is why so many Scottish Women's Groups appear to be acting as Stonewall cheer leaders. The believe TW are entitled to be in SS spaces. Wonder how they feel now that they have imposed this illegal act on women survivors, and that NS and others are going round being oh so reasonable, or course women have the right to single sex services.

OP posts:

Signalbox · 17/01/2023 21:55

Thanks for the explanation, IWanttoRetire. So if I've understood corretctly, the GRA phrase "for all purposes" originally meant "for all purposes".

All purposes bar sports, peerages and gender-specific offences. Even the GRA doesn't mean ALL purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/19

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/16

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

Original poster

IwantToRetire · 17/01/2023 23:05

Well how it was explained to me is think of it in reverse.

What was it that was meant that there needed to be exemptions.

And all because as usual women's rights just didn't register as being important.

OP posts:

Plbrookes · 18/01/2023 07:37

ILikeDungs · 17/01/2023 20:17

"So pleased this is finally "mainstream" news and the public are becoming aware of it."

We turned the radio off when it came up for the Nth time. Never thought l would do that, since l have been screaming for the BBC or Guardian to cover it since 2016 but hearing misunderstandings and lies and damned lies all day is wearing.

But DH said "how can l be part of this conversation when nobody allows the suggestion that maybe just maybe "trans" is not a real THING?

I get what he is saying, totally. These are troubled young people, disturbed and disturbing older men, and confused homosexuals looking for a place to belong. And maybe, that's all?

Is it possible for older men to be confused or troubled or would that 'send the wrong mesage'?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/01/2023 08:00

that NS and others are going round being oh so reasonable, or course women have the right to single sex services.

This gaslighting is what I find hardest to take about it. It's been a feature of the TRA campaign from the start. Deliberately dishonest. If you then ask these people for an example of when it's legitimate to use SSE to keep out MTF trans people, they never answer.

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 09:13

Lady Haldane said: "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 sex throughout the Equality Act means legal/certificate sex.

She went on to say this does not cause a conflict with other laws, such as the Forensic Medical Services Act, where sex is taken to mean biological sex.

So whenever we see sex in the EA, replace it with legal sex. And for the gender reassignment exclusion paragraph, partially quoted above it means service providers can take action to keep separate or single sex services - but a single-sex service is single legal sex (ie. mixed sex) because Haldane says there is no concept or protected characteristic of biological sex in the Equality Act. It does not make any sense.

Nor does the protected characteristic of sexual orientation which now makes gay a mixed bio sex category, or pregnancy and maternity protections which no longer apply to any bio woman who has a GRC saying she's a man.

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 09:26

And of course, the Scottish Government fought in court for this interpretation, ie. a man requires a GRC before he can be considered a woman "for all purposes", not just for inclusion in positive measures for women on public boards but all other provision made for women: changing rooms, hospital wards, etc.

But simultaneously told the Scottish Parliament that a GRC was NOT needed to access women's services and trans people had always accessed services in line with their self-identified gender, and that they somehow also fully supported upholding single-sex services where trans people could be excluded.

These cannot all be true.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/01/2023 09:27

that NS and others are going round being oh so reasonable, or course women have the right to single sex services.

Also what I've noticed over the years is that when you try and drill down to talking about situations where most women really do need a female space, such as medical facilities, prisons and rape crisis, genderists, despite it apparently being important for SSEs to be preserved in the Equality Act (which isn't at all affected by the GRA no no no) will then pearl clutch about the "transphobia" of being excluded from these female spaces, and say or strongly imply that it's because the speaker is demonising all "trans women" as predatory.

Again, I really hate the dishonesty.

StatisticallyChallenged · 18/01/2023 11:00

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 09:13

Lady Haldane said: "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 sex throughout the Equality Act means legal/certificate sex.

She went on to say this does not cause a conflict with other laws, such as the Forensic Medical Services Act, where sex is taken to mean biological sex.

So whenever we see sex in the EA, replace it with legal sex. And for the gender reassignment exclusion paragraph, partially quoted above it means service providers can take action to keep separate or single sex services - but a single-sex service is single legal sex (ie. mixed sex) because Haldane says there is no concept or protected characteristic of biological sex in the Equality Act. It does not make any sense.

Nor does the protected characteristic of sexual orientation which now makes gay a mixed bio sex category, or pregnancy and maternity protections which no longer apply to any bio woman who has a GRC saying she's a man.

Can you please link to an explanation which clarifies that the gender reassignment exclusion paragraph no longer applies if a person has a GRC?

I don't think it's that clear, and the policy exchange doc basically says, in polite legalese, that it's a fucking mess. Can't argue there.

The EA covers exclusion on the basis of protected characteristics. If a service opens and says explicitly that it is for bio females (JKs service, for example) then what ground does a formerly male GRC holder actually have to complain under the EA? They can't argue they're being excluded on the basis of their sex because their sex is female (legally), and perception of sex as male doesn't work because it's permitted to exclude males. They can't say it's because of gender reassignment because that's a specifically permitted exception.

I suppose what I mean is the EA allows you to create single sex services, which allows you to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic. But it doesn't say that you have to allow in every female, you're allowed to have other criteria too so long as they aren't protected characteristics. If a service was minded to limit their service to bio females I'm struggling to see how the EA would help a formerly male GRC holder.

I think however that either Haldane will be appealed (and quashed) or they'll end up rewording the EA to negate it.

Signalbox · 18/01/2023 11:13

BBC …opinion of Ex Supreme Court judge. Says SG are likely to lose…

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64315517.

Statement of reasons for Section 35

www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 11:21

I suppose what I mean is the EA allows you to create single sex services, which allows you to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic. But it doesn't say that you have to allow in every female, you're allowed to have other criteria too so long as they aren't protected characteristics.

It's not at all clear how it can possibly work. Under Haldane ruling, where it is legitimate and proportionate to provide a single-sex service it means single legal-sex so it is always going to be mixed biological sex wherever the sex exception is applied. There is no longer any concept or provision for bio sex in the EA. Exclusion on the basis of gender reassignment can only be used to achieve a single-sex (mixed bio sex) service.

I'm not so sure you can exclude on other criteria that are not protected characteristics.

And it's only going to take one case against JKR's centre to challenge how they can possibly exclude a "woman" from a woman-only service.

The whole Haldane decision is unworkable in practice as far as I can see.

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 11:22

I think however that either Haldane will be appealed (and quashed) or they'll end up rewording the EA to negate it.

I hope so too!

Signalbox · 18/01/2023 11:34

Does anyone know if FWS intend to appeal the Haldane decision?

StatisticallyChallenged · 18/01/2023 11:42

BetsyM00 · 18/01/2023 11:21

I suppose what I mean is the EA allows you to create single sex services, which allows you to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic. But it doesn't say that you have to allow in every female, you're allowed to have other criteria too so long as they aren't protected characteristics.

It's not at all clear how it can possibly work. Under Haldane ruling, where it is legitimate and proportionate to provide a single-sex service it means single legal-sex so it is always going to be mixed biological sex wherever the sex exception is applied. There is no longer any concept or provision for bio sex in the EA. Exclusion on the basis of gender reassignment can only be used to achieve a single-sex (mixed bio sex) service.

I'm not so sure you can exclude on other criteria that are not protected characteristics.

And it's only going to take one case against JKR's centre to challenge how they can possibly exclude a "woman" from a woman-only service.

The whole Haldane decision is unworkable in practice as far as I can see.

Services and organisations exclude on other criteria all the time - is there anything to stop me setting up an advanced study group targetted at mathematically gifted people who attend state schools only? Or a woman's elite weightlighting club? Both of those would have entry criteria which aren't protected characteristics.

But I agree that Haldane is fundamentally unworkable. And I have no doubt that JKR fully anticipates many legal cases (I half suspect that was one of her many motives).

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 18/01/2023 12:09

I’m not sure that the Haldane decision is wrong. As in, it may well be a reasonable interpretation of the law as it stands. The problem is that the legislation is a complete mess. I think current petition relating to the wording of the EA goes to the heart of the problem. The legislation should have been drafted better.