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.

Yes I agree with you @southbiscay

The more we push for it the more normalised it gets

I don’t think my comments in that piece aged badly at all. I was clear where the ambiguity lay and wrote without accusing my interlocutor of being an ideologically motivated hack with a mediocre grasp of the law and a propensity to hurl insults rather than provide insight:

miaow

if sex immutability is now a protected belief then sex mutability should not have a higher status.

Yes. Could this be achieved with a court case or JR?

We need to get a belief on gender identity and the mutability of sex shown as a belief. Surely someone should test if trans rights are WORIADS, too?

I have concerns over the Sex Matters approach and its possible unintended consequences, whilst at the same time understanding that, in terms of politics being the art of the possible, their approach has a greater chance of success in the short term. But on balance I think it is the wrong approach.

Until we remove the legal untruths that the GRA facilitates we will always be one step behind. At the same time the gender reassignment protected characteristic also needs to go to be replaced by the existing characteristic of belief. After all, if sex immutability is now a protected belief then sex mutability should not have a higher status.

I agree with this.

It's quite depressing that this is the level of stupidity we're dealing with.

No lawyer can say, in a judgement, "the law is an ass", so Lady Dorrian's role is only to attempt to interpret the law. In this case, the law (specifically the GRA) is an ass, so she has an impossible task. The law, the combination of the GRA and the EA, is both contradictory and unclear, which is why the EA needs clarification (sex is biological reality) and the GRA needs to be repealed (changing sex is not possible).

Yep. This mess is the fault of government, not the courts.

From that Michael Foran thread:

”I don’t think my comments in that piece aged badly at all. I was clear where the ambiguity lay and wrote without accusing my interlocutor of being an ideologically motivated hack with a mediocre grasp of the law and a propensity to hurl insults rather than provide insight”

Lol

I have no doubt that belief in transgenderism would be protected under the belief pc of the EA.

It would have to satisfy the five Grainger criteria:

(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Personally, I'd take issue with cogency and cohesion but still think it would sail through the tests with the right case.

a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion

Yes, that would be the tricky part. Surely the trans rights people must be agitating for this? Don't they want their beliefs protected?

Maybe Stonerwall could take this one on for a change.

I don't think they want their beliefs characterised as a belief. They think their beliefs should be accepted as fact, and biological reality recharacterised as a belief.

Double edged sword, for sure. You gain protection for holding your beliefs but also have to have them clearly spelled out.

I guess it would look something like:

'Gender identity is more important than biological sex, and is changeable according to individual preference'

I agree, defining their belief is as easy as nailing jelly to a wall. Once you have defined it then it should create clear boundaries that can be applied consistently and TRAs absolutely don’t want that.

We are happy with the original definition of sex and male, female = adult human female or male etc. It’s the GRA muddying the waters with a legal fiction that the problem.

I agree, defining their belief is as easy as nailing jelly to a wall. Once you have defined it then it should create clear boundaries that can be applied consistently and TRAs absolutely don’t want that.

This. I've never actually seen it defined, just wails of "peoples existence is not up for debate".

"How dare you call it an ideology, your belief is an ideology", er yes I do believe feminism is ideological, and?

'Gender identity is more important than biological sex, and is changeable according to individual preference'

Should cover it, no? Would anyone disagree that that is largely the gender ideology position?

They would disagree with "individual preference" or "changeable" I think depending on what they were trying to claim at the time.

'Gender identity is more important than biological sex, and is something only the individual can judge/ascertain/identify as'?

I'm trying to clarify the differences between gender identity ideology and Forstater's GC belief as described in her JR.

Yes that sounds more like it.

'Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.'

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/

An attempt:

'Genderist beliefs include the belief that gender identity supersedes biological sex, is mutable, and that sex can also mean gender identity. Gender identity is something that an individual identifies for themself'.

That's pretty good.

doesn't it fail v)?

doesn't it fail v)?

I was thinking that. But on reflection I don't think it does, as a belief. The consequences of it do, but not the actual belief.

I don't think they'd go for it though. I'm sure they don't want everyone to realise that they really do believe that their feelings supersede biology.

'Genderist beliefs include the belief that gender identity supersedes biological sex, is mutable, and that sex can also mean gender identity. Gender identity is something that an individual identifies for themself'.

Although, I'm guessing, they really would have to define gender identity in order for that to work.

And then they're toast.

Although, I'm guessing, they really would have to define gender identity in order for that to work.

And then they're toast.

This. I think it was Rebecca Riley Cooper who looked at some legal definitions of "gender identity" in other countries. They were all circular.