For Women Scotland have lost their appeal

[ArthurbellaScott]

https://forwomen.scot/01/11/2023/court-decision-reclaiming-motion/

The court rules that in some cases, men with a GRC are women.

As I understand it, a birth certificate can only be reissued with incorrect sex if the person has GRC. But does the same apply to other official identity documents? Passports, driving licence, any others - is there a list of documents that do or do not require a GRC, to be reissued with the wrong sex?

That ^^ By walking into a women's space, a man has implied that he has a piece of paper with a legal fiction on it, and that you are not permitted to check.

And how exactly is it now being justified that men are definitely women for all purposes with a GRC but only male women can be excluded from female women spaces and activities if it's of detriment to meeting the needs of female women?

Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip.

The example given is that if an HR department learns an employee has a GRC, they cant inform anyone else. But what does that mean if the employees sex is apparent?

In a organisation with single sex changing facilities, a man cannot legally be in the womans space, but perhaps he can with the GRC. But HR cant say he has a GRC.

So in practice, do politicians think any man should be allowed in womens spaces to not 'out' the man with GRC, or should the man with a GRC stay out to protect his GRC secrecy?

A passport needs a doctors letter to say that the applicants gender is likely to be permanent. Its up to the doctor to decide the criteria, and it doesnt have to be the applicant GP.

I think driving licences are in practice self id.

The passport office dont record how many passport are issued this way.

If the s35 is successful that only means that the original limits one who gets a GRC continue and that was pretty much everyone who applied for one. It doesn’t stop the Scottish Government appointing a panel of just men to a public board and claiming it is equality - if half of them have a GRC.

From another thread where I was wondering along similar lines:

Having a certificate means you can:
update your birth or adoption certificate, if it was registered in the UK
get married or form a civil partnership in your affirmed gender
update your marriage or civil partnership certificate, if it was registered in the UK
have your affirmed gender on your death certificate when you die
It will not change your legal status as the father or mother of a child.
You do not need a certificate to:
update your driving licence
update your passportupdate your medical records, employments records or your bank account

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

The GRA needs to go. It's where all roads lead to.

There should never have been such a massive falsification in law.

So much this.

It’s the reason for all the issues.

What's the betting that paedophiles like A Miller queue up to get a GRC now?

The only possible reason I can think for this is that the judges involved WANT to harm women and children. Because that's what will happen as a result of this.

What does this mean for safeguarding and DBS checks? Can paedophiles effectively hide previous male identities where they committed sex crimes if they have a GRC?

This is why any politician aka Labour who says we will protect any space is talking out their arse because of course a GRC makes a man legally female

As I keep saying on this we need legal change.

A GRC legally makes men women right now

Yes. There are threads on this.

This.

And this:

Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip

Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip
Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip
Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip
Ffs Sunak, get a bloody grip

I’d be happy to vote on it.

I’ve never been asked if I want this stuff, I don’t.

Awww for fucks sake. I've had one of the shittest weeks of my life and now this for the cherry on top. And it's only Wednesday.

I haven't read the ruling, I seriously have no time this week.
All I can say which I've been saying for a long time now, repeal the GRA.
It's where nearly all the problems come from and repealing it will go a long way to making women and girls safer.

We really need to get organised to fight to repeal the gra,anything else is wasting our time and resources.

The EA prevents discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, it doesn’t stop people being treated differently for other reasons. So a woman can be excluded from a single sex space or service (eg she doesn’t meet the qualifying conditions to access the space/service) as long as the reason isn’t another protected characteristic (eg disability). Being a woman does not guarantee access to all single sex women’s spaces.

a trans woman can be excluded from a single sex space because she is trans, even though she is a woman. This would of course have been unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, if it were not for the exception which specifically allows trans people to be excluded from single sex spaces provided it is justified and proportionate.

This has made me more inclined to consider arguing for the GRA to be repealed. I’d resisted this til now, but, honestly, it’s utterly offensive when you think that the protected characteristic of sex is defined by, & reliant on, the exclusion of males. They’ve changed the meaning of our PC in a way that renders it meaningless & void. Doing this feels indefensible, & certainly makes no logical sense, so the “they’re not conflated” conclusion can only be down to bad law, or the moral judgement that a male’s internal sense of self has greater weight than a female’s recognition of objective truth. (I know it theoretically goes the other way, too, but it’s not transboys advocating to enter male spaces, is it?)

NB My spellcheck is now telling me that transboys & transmen are incorrect, so is clearly promiting the trans/black/disabled-as-adjective cause that, similarly, redefines & recategorises me to correspond to the perception of a minority of men.

It’s on all fronts, isn’t it. Quite terrifying.

Sorry dont have time to read thread, so I may repeat what others have said.

This ruling like the Lady Haldane ruling changes nothing.

This is the situation we have had since the EA (thanks Ayesha_Hazarika) was ammende to accomodate the EA.

ie even though biological women are by far the larger group, the EA says there are only a few occassions when the single sex exemptions can be utilised.

In this new ruling it says:

The decision of the UK Parliament to enact the GRA in the wide terms which it did necessarily, however, drives us away from a strict biological definition unless the context clearly and necessarily dictates otherwise. ...

The exception provisions of the EA (in particular Schedule 3 para 28) apply to enable providers of single-sex services to exclude trans individuals, including those with a GRC who would otherwise be entitled to be included. ...

So the only options are to repeal the GRA (too many powerful people have their "creditibility" invested in this not happening) or (which would make a GRC pointless) change the EA to say that sex means biological sex.

Not sure that the cost of 2 courts cases was worth us being told nothing has changed.

So the only options are to repeal the GRA (too many powerful people have their "creditibility" invested in this not happening) or (which would make a GRC pointless) change the EA to say that sex means biological sex.

I’d go with either

First may be too hard so second

Trans women with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces on the basis of gender reassigment if it meets the proportionality test, just a trans women without a GRC can be. This was always the case.

The ruling reinforces fact that, in law, the use of gender and sex are context-sensitive. The Scottish GRA never had any impact on access to single-sex spaces and this defeat just confirms this.

So a man can just get a certificate and then legally he is seen as a woman? Isn't this just legalising the rights of males to abuse women and transgress their boundaries at the same time they are criminalising women even complaining about men in their single sex spaces, services and sports? Its horrific!

There was a programme on radio 4 this morning where a woman who had suffered a brain stem stroke and had developed locked in syndrome as a result spoke of how a male nurse came and gave her a bad bath. There was no way for her to complain or say she didn't want a male to bath her and she just silently cried as he washed her even though inside she was screaming no!

In future it seems that all women will just have to accept males in all situations abusing us, eroding our dignity and boundaries and we will be as unable to argue or fight back as the women on that show. Its truly disgusting.

This. They only make sense because a man with a certificate is not a woman.

Quite jammysmol, it is quite clear that this legislation (EA) discriminates against women - which breaches the European Convention on Human Rightd

It amuses me that certain males are celebrating this….when in fact this will be the downfall of the GRA, it has to be repealed, no more GRCs issued. We have seen the mess it causes (& a certain person who obtained a GRC as a man then proceeded to get pregnant and give birth.) it is ludicrous

So a female with a GRC making their legal sex male is not legally entitled to statutory maternity leave, statutory maternity pay nor the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. In addition, in equal pay cases they cannot use a male comparator.

Employers can’t ask for a GRC but can ask for a birth certificate showing legal sex is male.

I wonder if there is an employer brave enough to deny a pregnant transman maternity leave & pay etc. on the basis they are male in order to test this decision in court.

I suspect employers will act unlawfully and treat them as female.