The whole article, as per usual, is completely one sided, and misleading by omission. It entirely ignores the implications for women of the For Women Scotland appeal.
The article’s description:
“For Women Scotland is challenging whether Scottish government legislation aimed at improving gender balance on public boards should include transgender women.”
What an accurate and unbiased description would say:
“For Women Scotland is challenging whether Scottish government legislation aimed at improving female under-representation on public boards should include males with a GRC in the definition of women.”
There’s no effort by the Guardian to understand or portray the women’s rights aspect at all.
McCloud’s “friend”’s one-sided description:
“A friend of hers said: “This would mean in practice that women like her [with a gender recognition certificate] would lose rights to equal pay with men and experience restricted rights to services or moves to exclude her from spaces such as women’s lavatories.”
What an unbiased and accurate description of the FWS appeal would say:
“This would mean in practice that women who are female would have their rights to equal pay with men who are male protected, as the pay of males with a GRC would be included with the pay of males without a GRC, for equal pay comparison purposes”.
And also
A friend of hers said: “This would mean in practice that women like her [with a gender recognition certificate] would lose rights to equal pay with men and experience restricted rights to services or moves to exclude her from spaces such as women’s lavatories.”
What an unbiased and accurate description of FWS appeal would say:
“This would mean in practice that women who are female would retain their rights to single-sex female-only services and spaces such as women’s lavatories.”
No one expects McCloud’s “friend” to present anything other than McCloud’s view, but the journalist / columnist/ reporter could have asked LWS for their position.