LGBTQ+ Organisations to intervene on the UK Government's Block on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland

[IwantToRetire]

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Reform (“ICDR”) have jointly been given leave to intervene in an important judicial review relating to the UK Government’s power to prevent legislation approved by the Scottish Parliament becoming law.
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/adam-wagner-and-stephanie-davins-clients-granted-permission-intervene-important-constitutional

.
Europe's largest LGBTQ+ right charity Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (ICDR) have together been granted leave to intervene in an important Scottish judicial review in which the Scottish Government is challenging the UK Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack MP, on the issuing of a “section 35” order to block the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill into law.

A senior judge has permitted these organisations to submit written evidence to the court, outlining their rationale behind challenging the UK Government’s stance that there would be adverse consequences if the Bill became law

Each of these charities represents a different area of relevant expertise, and by working together they will seek to provide evidence to the court demonstrating that:

• International comparators demonstrate that measures similar to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill have been implemented in comparable jurisdictions, without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.
• The “adverse impacts” on equalities law identified by the UK Government are, in fact, unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts
• Parliament did not intend the section 35 powers be used in the case of a mere policy disagreement or without first exhausting other avenues for dialogue between the UK Government and Scottish Parliament.

NB the full story is on Stonewall's web site https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/lgbtq-organisations-intervene-uk-governments-block-gender-recognition-reform-bill

Please, keep it coming, # LetThemSpeak.

So they have downgraded their "no adverse impact" somewhat.

without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.

unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts

So all the lies were lies then?

Its going to be interesting to see what adverse impacts the men want.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

Here's the statement of reasons.

Their arguments are going to be that men can already do exactly what they want because everyone has already been bullied into submission so it won't make any difference.

I’m looking forward to this. Or rather I am looking forward to the feminist takedown of the confused and contradictory nonsense they come up with.

Yes, exactly.

It's like having the 1950s all over again, men are going to tell us what we have to do for them and why we mustn't complain because they understand our lady feelings and they are best kept to ourselves as the men are sorting it all out as is the natural way of the world.

What is ICDR and what is their stake in this?

Does anyone have a link to the written submission by the Scottish Government for Judicial review? There is reference that it has been ammended and I can only find this one which I assume is the original Gender recognition reform: Section 35 Order challenge - petition

Just mentioning it as this is the Government's Response. The first bit is very long and is an itemised response to the above or the ammended above.

But finishes with:

1. The petitioners’ averments being irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification, the petition should be dismissed.
2. The petitioners’ averments, so far as material, being unfounded in fact, the remedies sought should be refused.
3. The decision of the Secretary of State to make the Order complained of being neither irrational, nor unlawful, the remedies sought should be refused.
4. The Order being lawfully made in terms of section 35(1)(b) and (2) of the Scotland Act 1998, the petition should be refused.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/answers-and-note-of-argument-for-judicial-review-of-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/answers-on-behalf-of-the-advocate-general-for-scotland-to-petition-on-for-judicial-review-of-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-prohibitio

There is another long paper from the Government setting out (I think) why they thought it necessarty to use Section 35. This is the 4th section:

Adverse effects in relation to the operation of the Equality Act 2010

(a) Exacerbation of existing issues with the operation of the Equality Act 2010The amendments made by the Bill to the 2004 Act will allow a new and significantly broader category of people, who are currently unable to obtain a full GRC, to do so. This group (the new cohort) comprises:

• applicants aged 16 to 17
• applicants without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria
• applicants who have not lived for 2 years in their acquired gender

The UK government has assessed that the creation of this new and very different cohort of eligible applicants would adversely affect the operation of the 2010 Act, identifying 4 key areas:

• clubs and associations (where exceptions apply in respect of sex but not in respect of gender reassignment)
• the operation of the PSED
• equal pay
• provisions where exceptions apply for both sex and gender reassignment

Clubs and associations (where exceptions apply in respect of sex but not in respect of gender reassignment)The provisions in the 2010 Act relating to associations with 25 or more members (Part 7) mean that associations are able to restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, so they could restrict membership to men or to women. Many forms of women’s groups and clubs, including any membership-based[footnote 10] support groups for vulnerable women or women who have been victims of rape or sexual violence, or those designed to foster women and girls’ participation in particular activities or sports, will be covered in respect of associations which have regulated their membership to be women-only. Where an individual has changed their sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act by obtaining a full GRC, the association is therefore not able to refuse membership on the grounds of their previous sex. They also cannot restrict membership to people who are not covered by the gender reassignment characteristic because an association’s membership can only be based on a shared protected characteristic and not the absence of it. The Bill’s creation of a new cohort with the ability to change their legal sex will significantly change the profile and number of individuals that associations will be unable to exclude from membership on grounds of sex. The 2010 Act’s measures in relation to associations prevent them from denying membership to a presently small and highly defined group of people who have changed their legal sex under the 2004 Act as it currently applies. This was the context in which the 2010 Act was enacted. The Bill will adversely affect the operation of the 2010 Act by changing the effect of its requirements on single-sex associations, who will be required to accept, without discrimination, members from a new, larger and different cohort, who would not have met the requirements currently set out in the 2004 Act. Whereas current GRC recipients have established a stable gender identity for at least 2 years, recipients under the Bill may have done so for only 6 months[footnote 11] and in a manner which is self-defined. Where an association had reason to exclude the opposite sex, it is reasonable to assume that a liberalisation of the process for changing legal sex will create new challenges, problems or concerns. Accommodations, adjustments and compromises that may have been reasonably provided on an exceptional basis, may not be possible for a larger number. Provisions that may have been appropriate for individuals who have lived in their acquired gender over a significant period of time may not be suitable where this is not the case. The Bill therefore changes the nature and level of expectations of single-sex associations as compared to those set by the 2010 Act when enacted. In doing so, it may lead to associations, including long established associations, being at greater risk of being found to be operating unlawfully (by excluding transgender women, for example) or making decisions to cease operating because of the perceived risks. Similarly potential founders of new such associations may not proceed due to equivalent concerns. These changes could lead to the loss of this provision, undermining efforts to foster greater participation of women in a particular activity, or to the self-exclusion of women who, for religious, philosophical belief or other reasons, may only feel able to attend an association if they understand them to be segregated by biological sex and who are more likely to believe, given the increase and expansion of the cohort if the Bill is enacted, that this is unlikely.

So sorry somehow hit post. This is the link to read the whole document that Section 4 (post above) comes from.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

About the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (ICDR)
Info in stonewall link in OP https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/lgbtq-organisations-intervene-uk-governments-block-gender-recognition-reform-bill

“in very rare factual contexts”

Do the TQ organisations set out those “very rare” situations where they accept there’s an impact?

Let them intervene

The bar is high on this one

They have to prove that the minister acted irrationally by blocking the bill.

And all they have is their own irrational twaddle

I hope a government barrister shows Exhibit A. A large projected picture of rapist Isla in his pink leggings, followed by Exhibit B, C, D etc of all the other violent men allowed in women’s prisons.
That should do it.

Shine more light. Please. Srand up there in turn and put those points to be cross examined.

But isn’t it the UK Government’s position that the GRR bill goes beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament, in that in effect it changes the law outside Scotland as well as inside Scotland? So once the TQ groups concede there are some “rare factual contexts”, they have in fact accepted the UKG was correct to block the bill? A bit like a builder accepting that the garage they’ve just built is six inches closer to the neighbour’s kitchen window than they had planning permission for?

So presumably the TQ groups’ aim in participating in this legal action is to ‘win the moral argument’ as they would see it and influence public opinion, by distracting attention away from the legal position and deploying manipulative appeals to emotion, false claims of suicide risk, and seeking to make use of families in the difficult position of having distressed teen girls identifying as non-binary as an escape from the porn-addled world created by smartphones giving children unrestrained access to all the horrors of the internet.

Women and girls have been raped, RAPED, when trans identifying males have been allowed into "women only" spaces. It's vile those organisations are fighting this.

Yet again these organisations saying the quiet bit out loud - that 16 year olds must be allowed to set themselves on a pathway to life long infertility, drug use and surgery. All because these adult groups have no concept or interest in safeguarding children and young people from making decisions before they are emotionally and intellectually competent to do so.

The inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds in the bill will be a focus for the TQ activists.

As we know, chipping away at age restrictions is an ongoing campaign goal for certain interest groups. And certain stakeholders have a commercial interest in reducing age thresholds as a way of increasing the number of potential fee paying customers. The Gender GP website has a blogpost about ‘evidence’ of children experiencing gender dysphoria at a younger age.

Those groups with an interest in child safeguarding will need to have their evidence ready on the harm to children of being put on the social transition > hormone treatment > surgery pathway.

So presumably the TQ groups’ aim in participating in this legal action is to ‘win the moral argument’ as they would see it and influence public opinion

If that's what they're thinking, it's likely to backfire. The more publicity the trans cause gets, the less the public like it. Though I guess these organisations have to go through the motions to justify their existence.

Those groups with an interest in child safeguarding will need to have their evidence ready on the harm to children of being put on the social transition > hormone treatment > surgery pathway.

This is something I was wondering - will groups opposed to Stonewall et al.'s agenda get to submit evidence?

Why can Stonewall et al intervene and not, say, the Muslim Council of Great Britain? Or the Christian Institute? Both of which represent the interests of a number of people who could be adversely affected by the new law (Muslim women in particular).

The EA2010 is mentioned throughout that document, not just Part 4. This is from Part 1:

The 2010 Act makes “sex” a protected characteristic and makes provisions about when conduct relating to that protected characteristic is unlawful. Section 9 of the 2004 Act provides that unless exceptions apply, the effect of a full GRC is that “for all purposes” the person’s sex becomes as certified. As a matter of general principle, a full GRC has the effect of changing the sex that a person has as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the 2010 Act.[footnote 2] This is subject to a contrary intention being established in relation to the interpretation of particular provisions of the 2010 Act.

Which is what we've been saying for years on here. If 'sex' in the EA is legal sex, rather than biological sex, then the PC of sex in the EA would be meaningless under self ID, since any man could legally become a woman and be indistinguishable (in a legal sense) from actual female women.

Was UK Govt's Section 35 intervention, and is Scot Govt's Judicial Review, anything to do with the human harms of enabling trans ideology? After all, UK Govt already enables it by having enshrined part of it in UK law. Or is this purely about how Scot Govt's actions could conflict with existing UK legislation? Dry legalese, rather than actual human interests and safeguarding? Is it really as clear as we think it is?

Reduxx is jam packed with reports of what has happened in other countries in which self Id has been passed.

.......and there is a thread on this board too " It'll never happen".

It's is just a lie to suggest there have been no adverse effects.