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.

Sorry @Datun quote fail!

Unless those people are, collectively, the group of people with reproductive systems organised around childbearing, in which case they are not allowed to have a word for themselves and organisations such as Amnesty fucking International deny that there is any such thing.

If people who fit this description believe they do exist, they are not allowed to debate their own existence and wishing to do so is bigotry.

And that is the definition of an actually oppressed group as opposed to quite liking the feelz of fetishing the idea of being oppressed.

No voice welcomed, not permitted to question their masters, not regarded as important enough to be allowed an identity or a name. Regarded as challenging and dangerous should they dare to speak at all. Terms of abuse abound and are considered appropriate and normal by their masters, for those so naturally of this lower, inferior, subordinated state.

The masters being the oppressors and abusers. (Who will lecture you, for fucking hours , in huge amounts of pomo burble, about how they fondly imagine this being ok because Reasons, and oppressing is EVIL but only when it happens to them and ok for them to do to others, and they hate colonialism passionately unless they're doing it.)

These masters also believing that reality is what they say it is/want it to be. And that 'genociding' someone means implying that they can't do precisely what they want at all times regardless of impact on others. The utter fucking ignorant, self obsessed overprivilege to be able to fondly be LARPing in that belief with Ukraine and Gaza just to mention two....

'Gender Identity, describes the psychosocial identification of oneself, typically, that is in the majority of the population, as a boy/man or as a girl/woman, known as the ‘binary’ model –you are either one thing or the other.'

https://www.gires.org.uk/resources/terminology/

(also note this disclaimer, though: 'Terminology in this field varies in its usage between individuals and groups, and is constantly shifting.')

Thinking of it in the context of 'religion or [philosophical] belief', which is the full title of the compound protected characteristic, makes it easier to see how genderism would qualify as a protected belief. After all, there is nothing particularly logical about a religious belief. And many people have also rightly observed that the genderism is a form of secular religion.

I think that's an accurate and fair representation of Stonewall and Gender Ideology. It's easy to understand, and you can agree with or disagree with it.

Let's just put it in black and white instead of unclear thought-terminating cliché like Trans Women Are Women.

There are professionals who say the PC of GR is needed because there have been instances where trans people would not have been protected if GR didnt exist. (Unhelpfully, i havent been able to find actual examples.)

It cant be include within faith because a medical condition isnt a faith.

Obviously, it cant be included with disability.

I dont understand why it cannot be included under sex, unless the aim is to treat men as if they are not men, and women as if they arent women. But judgements are showing that the PC of GR alone doesnt allow for that.

The only examples i can think of is time of work for cosmetic surgery. A man wouldn't be given paid leave for facial surgery, but a man with gender would be if its part of his identity? Or maybe dress codes at work, or name changes?

Its more likely to be the ability to change 'gender marker', to aid the GRC process. And thats where the problem is for women and girls - men with female id.

I'd question if 'gender markers' need to be changed to support the GRC process. Serveral ids are needed - bills, memberships of organisation, qualifications none of which prove sex. So why would passports and work details need show incorrect sex, when the panel would understand that anyway?

Removing the need to change sex/gender markers to inform the GRC process would maybe remove the need for PC of GR, or make GR less likely to conflict with the rights of women and girls.

Many trans-identified people do not see it as a medical condition. Despite the medications, surgeries and co-morbidities associated with it.

But in any case it is not the trans-identified person, per se, that could be covered under belief, it is the belief itself in genderism.

Looks like RMW has been attempting to undermine Michael Foran. I’ve learned not to expect too much from trans activists but you’d expect a barrister to act somewhat more professionally.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720868174680248574.html

If anyone in the mood for supporting For Women Scotland, whether they take this further or not they rely entirely on donations, a new book of poems written by some of the women of mumsnet FWR board is now available and 100% of the profit will be donated to For Women Scotland

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CMJZ43VZ

It is currently No. 1 in political and protest poetry.

But this is not just any barrister we are talking about! RMW thinks the normal rules don't apply in their case!

Bless him - he's far more diplomatic than FWR was when handing that barrister their arse on a plate. 😂

Alex Massie's take on in the Sunday Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c2594726-7a84-11ee-83ba-000db1848e33?shareToken=ce4bc8e4aa8c5011768d4b38d465fae4

'... most people, I think, have an understanding that a distinction may be drawn between trans people who have medically transitioned and those who consider themselves trans but have not, and often have no intention, of doing so.'

Where did Massie.get this idea from? If he thinks that having one's genitals removed makes a man somehow safe and fine to be included with women, I present Sarah Jane Baker. Currently in prison after inciting violence against women.

Quite.

There isn't 'true trans' and 'not really trans'. If someone self identifies, they are. Medical transition isn't a condition of a GRC, and you can't ask to see one anyway. How are you planning to check on degree of transition at the door of places? How are you going to deal (or expect a member of staff to deal) with a large, angry male insisting that he has transitioned, he passes and no one will know he's trans, and that he's going into the women's space? And medical transitions aren't a magic bullet that turn a predator into a kitten.

If they are, then ffs send Mermaids out to K wing at Strangeways and we'll disappear all the 24 hour violence and horror, and everyone, prisoners and staff, will be a lot happier.

Sorry, but this is the natural, painful step of trying to manage the cognitive dissonance of 'I want to be lovely and kind, but I will need to extend this to women and recognise real issues too' and resorting to 'well there's obviously some that can't but some are ok, can we compromise there?'

We've all been there. Thing is, that compromise was the GRA. It's failed. Men broke it. Their identities at the time aren't relevant. They have no intention of stopping breaking it, and would like to break it faster and in larger amounts. Many express finding women's exclusion, distress and harm irrelevant, funny, or enraging. You can find the threads here evidencing this. If it's one man under any circumstances, then it is all men. This is why it has to be no men, at all. End of.

I agree it's unfair to judge an individual based on the particular medical procedures they've had or their appearance. Trans is clearly a state of mind and therefore self declaration is enough to acquire trans status. You can decide from moment to moment.

Yes. Gender is fluid. And infinite. And indefinable.

Which all is very cool and dandy, but it's clearly not something to base laws on, gather data about, or try and formalise into regulations.

It's about equivalent to starsigns.

Which is all great.

But if you're finding yourself trying to work out how to reorganise women's lives, realities, inclusion and access barriers around a male person's (possible) state of mind in the moment?

You've got a much bigger problem on your hands than you've realised.

Damn. Damn. Damn.

Would this interpretation of the GRA also be binding on the English courts? I know the legal systems are separate, but this is Westminster legislation.

Thank you so much Boiledbeetle, we really appreciate that! And thanks to everyone who has supported us in any way!

Just to keep you all updated, we are going to sit down and discuss options with our lawyers, but, in the meantime, we do feel that this has been useful in teasing out some of the problems and conflicts in law (hitherto denied by Scot Gov) and, hopefully, will bolster the case for clarity.

Thank for the update. Even if you do decide this its as far as it goes you're right in that it's definitely brought a few "issues" that the Scottish government having been denying were ever a problem into rather sharp focus!

I don’t think Robin has acted appropriately. I think this is irresponsible and unserious. This kind of behaviour is unbecoming of anyone who wants to put themself out as an expert that people can trust on a highly complex topic.

you'd think, after all the times that Stonewall has been identified as not understanding the law, anyone who advises them would have learnt to behave better by now.

I think the current gambit is to say that if you try to hold someone in a special category to typical minimum standards and expectations for the job/basic acceptable behaviour/professionalism, you are transphobic, homophobic, heteronormativeclownfishyburblystuff <insert current slur here> in an attempt to say that it's ok , and only right wing extremist colonialist white old smelly stupid people wouldn't get that.

It's not standing up in court so far. You'd think, to be fair, it wouldn't work on anyone who's ever had a toddler or a teenager, but there you go, some people are more gullible than others.