Scottish Govt ditch "Living as a woman" as qualification

[OllyBJolly]

Another victory to the Sheros at For Women Scotland

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24186774.msps-say-public-board-quota-rules-definition-woman-change/?ref=ebln&nid=1220&nid=1220&block=article_block_a&u=054edb3529532184da5e0680af05453d&date=150324

The original legislation defined a “woman” to include all transgender women, regardless of whether they had a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

The amended version, if approved by the wider Scottish Parliament, will remove the definition of a women which includes “a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment… if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo or has undergone a process (or part of the process) for the purpose of becoming female”.

It came after feminist campaigners For Women Scotland challenged the definition in the Court of Session, which ruled the wording unlawful.

Thanks, OP.

'MSPs have approved the removal of a controversial definition of women from legislation which aims to increase female participation on public boards.
The Scottish Parliament’s Equalities Committee recommended the amendment to the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act.
The Act, passed in 2018, sets the aim of having 50 per cent of women as non-executive members on public boards.

The original legislation defined a “woman” to include all transgender women,
The amended version, if approved by the wider Scottish Parliament, will remove the definition of a women which includes “a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment… if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo or has undergone a process (or part of the process) for the purpose of becoming female”.

It came after feminist campaigners For Women Scotland challenged the definition in the Court of Session, which ruled the wording unlawful.
The amendment will now go before MSPs

Effective from April 2022, a senior judge stated Holyrood did not have the legislative competence to “expand the definition of women”.
The ruling said it impinged on protected characteristics within the reserved Equality Act 2010.

Last year, ministers put the amended version of the Act before Parliament, to remove the definition.
Committee convener Karen Adam said: “Our committee is satisfied that this Bill provides a technical fix, in order to tidy up the statute book, following the rulings of the Court of Session.
“We would like to thank everyone who shared their views with us during the consultation period.”
The Act will still allow trans women with a GRC to be counted as part of the gender balance scheme.'

So, the Act will still include males as women. But they'll need to have a GRC.

It's a victory of sorts but we just have to hope that the UK govt does not hand out GRCs like sweeties. We need the GRA to be repealed so badly.

The Act will still allow trans women with a GRC to be counted as part of the gender balance scheme.

so still includes men then.

Agree it's a tiny step in the right direction but I took it as quite a big signal that the Scottish government is sliding away from its TWAW stance.

Unfortunately yes @Boiledbeetle
This should have been done ages ago but the snp are extremely slow at implementing changes when it comes to crt rulings that go against them.
It took them 6+ years to change their illegal schools guidance after they were ordered to by the crts and then replaced it with a slightly less illegal guidance but added a small print disclaimer at the bottom (so small that you literally need a magnifying glass to read it) that says that any school or teacher that follows it would be personally liable not scot gov (as if that will help them in crt 🙄).
So as you can see we can't trust them as far as we can throw them

No chance they are only making the changes because they have been forced to by the crts not because of any change in direction

Karen Adam couldn't find her arse with both hands. There is no chance she's suddenly become sensible.

yes this. It's still not offering what it claims to.

it would if we went back to the old GRC requirement. Because then, at least, we'd have the ones who are prepared to do all the psych evaluations and waiting to get a GRC.

I mean it wouldn't be what most people want because it would still include trans women (tru trans only) with a GRC, but it would weed out a lot of the AGP and MRAs who are doing all their transness with a view only to get one over on women.

What psych evals @Brefugee ? The bar for getting a GRC is extremely low.

So we're still this but Oliver needs a wee certificate now 🤦🏻‍♀️
(not to take anything away from FWS who are totally amazing) the only way we'll ever have anything for ourselves again is if the GRA is repealed

IIRC the original criteria for getting a GRC required a certification from a doctor that the applicant was gender dysphoric. Which is a mental health condition and thus requiring evaluation. That alongside the "living in the acquired gender" bollocks.

I'm not talking about the new quickie bung us a fiver and you're done stuff.

The Labour Party truly fucked over women with the misogynistic GRA. Shameful.

In fact it just puts the law back where it was / has been since the GRA and confirmed by Lady Haldane, ie there are "legal women" and actual women.

But if there hadn't been the 2(or was it 3) court cases in Scotland and the UK Government challenge self ID might have just slipped through.

So yes indeed thanks to those who took the time to challenge.

The judicial review that FWS won said that incorporating transsexuals (ie. persons with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, with or without a GRC) who are living as women into the definition of woman conflates and confuses the two separate and distinct protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment and was ruled outwith legislative competence. An exception in the Equality Act which allows steps to be taken relating to the inclusion of women as having a protected characteristic of sex, is limited to allowing provision to be made in respect of a “female of any age”. Provisions in favour of women, in this context, by definition exclude those who are biologically male.

The court ordered that the offending parts of the Act and the statutory guidance be removed. It is only now, 2 years later, that the Scot Govt is getting round to amending the Act. However, they quite quickly revised the statutory guidance but, instead of just removing the problematic bits, they added the section about women including men with GRCs. FWS didn't think this was in line with the judgment, hence the second judicial review (the Haldane decision) and now the Supreme court action.

The Haldane decision (and it being largely upheld at the subsequent appeal) did not overrule the first JR that FWS won, both stand with equal legal weight. I daresay the fact that Haldane took a different interpretation from the precedent set in the first JR might crop up in the Supreme court case.

It's not a case of putting the law back where it was since the GRA. The Equality Act never included men with GRCs as women - pregnancy, sexual orientation, equal pay, single-sex, etc provisions simply don't work if GRCs are included. The Equality Act has always referred to sex as its ordinary biological meaning and has been misinterpreted by the EHRC, and others.

Thanks very much for the background, that's so helpful. Hearing about the first judicial review makes the Haldane judgement seem even more baffling.
So FWS are on strong legal ground, then? I'm more hopeful now about the SC action to sort this out. Or Liz Truss's bill, but that is a long shot

I don't think anyone goes to the Supreme Court if they haven't been advised they have strong legal grounds! The UK Govt could step in at any point and resolve this if they wanted to, it doesn't even have to be via Liz Truss's bill. They could do a statutory instrument of the kind that the Sex Matters petition called for. I'm just baffled as to why they haven't.

The Equality Act has always referred to sex as its ordinary biological meaning and has been misinterpreted by the EHRC, and others.

It doesn't that's why there is a campaign to get the definition spelt out.

And that's why they had to write the SSE, because even those who were happy to prioritise trans rights over women's rights did recognise that (so long as women could prove it!!) it was possible to provide women only services. Hence the expression for all other purposes trans women are "legal" women.

If it had been the other (right way) round ie for all purposes women are biological females then they wouldn't have had to write the single sex exemptions. They would have written a TWE saying that in these limited circumstances a trans woman is a "woman".

Over and above anything else, if those who wrote and passed the legislation had not intended TW to be accepted as real women, they wouldn't have needed to write the single sex exemptions.

The single sex exemptions although useful are a legal slap in the face of biological females because it is saying for most of your life you are meant to see that TWAW. But if you are very very good we will occassional allow you to legally be exclusively with other biological females.

@BetsyM00
I don't think anyone goes to the Supreme Court if they haven't been advised they have strong legal grounds!
Fair enough.

The UK Govt could step in at any point and resolve this if they wanted to, it doesn't even have to be via Liz Truss's bill. They could do a statutory instrument of the kind that the Sex Matters petition called for. I'm just baffled as to why they haven't.

Playing politics, I suppose. I'm so angry with Kemi Badenoch in particular because now it seems she is all talk and no action on this. The public is absolutely behind this - there's no excuse for not sorting it out. And wrt to Liz Truss's bill, how can KB not throw her weight behind at the very least for the provisions about children? I'm disgusted.

I'm just baffled as to why they haven't.

This is said over and over. In the grand scheme of things, eg Brexit, Covid and sheer incompetence, women's rights dont figure.

Even if some prominent women Minister promote this, they know, as does Labour that this isn't a vote winner.

Most people, despite how we feel, just dont think this is a top priority.

Picking on a lone woman as somehow responsible shows a complete lack of understanding who Government works.

I know the MSM try to make out its all about one individual, eg the relentless fawning over Boris right up until he totally FU, but it isn't.

How can anyone imagine that a lone MP even a Minister could wave a magic wand and the law would change. Its just nonsese.

I think it's fair enough to point the finger at the minister for Women, surely? And the law doesn't have to be changed - it just has to be clarified that sex in the EA means sex. A statutory instrument is much more straightforward to issue (if that's the right word) than an Act of Parliament.

I had a knock down drag out fight on this forum about using a statutory instrument to amend the EA and finally had to accept that any such amendment requires primary legislation.

Ah, ok. Can you tell me why? If it's just clarifying the meaning of a couple of terms?

The rights for a minister to amend primary legislation are contained within the specific legislation (Act of Parliament). The Equality Act 2010 doesn't give that right with regards to the definition of any of the protected characteristics.

Oh, I see. So the need for SIs has to be foreseen in the original Act. Thank you.

Then Kemi Badenoch had better get behind Truss's bill!