Lord Reed: How we will decide what constitutes a woman

[Igneococcus]

I'm not sure if this has been shared anywhere yet:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6185aab5-cff9-4282-88bf-d1e4d3edd27e?shareToken=a9b4144fe07d496207106acc00b36264

Let's see what proportion of the UK females are dick pandering patient Griseldas in need of boundaries, ability to think of others beyond themselves, and a book on codependence.

Sorry, I understood you to mean reality based.

Let's see what proportion of the UK females are dick pandering patient Griseldas in need of boundaries, ability to think of others beyond themselves, and a book on codependence.

There will sadly be many more than I would hope for, but they aren't the majority.

Funny how defining 'what is a man' is not seen as controversial

That would be the famous Montgomery vs Lanarkshire case, which established that a pregnant woman (Nadine Montgomery) should have been told that she had a raised risk of shoulder dystocia and therefore given the option of a planned caesarean. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the verdict was delivered by Lady Hale.

How do we define what a judge is?

Do we base it on having the right constituent parts - qualifications, experience etc

or do we just say 'we feel like it' and everyone accepts it?

I'm not sure but isn't this a good thing? Just firmly crossing my fingers.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/088ae0ce-fba9-4b97-8331-01a32195bef5?shareToken=3ada340957f5d2af2e20b01a7c15da3b
The Supreme Court will consider a request brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) who argue there are “strong grounds” for its challenge, which will almost certainly overturn contentious Scottish government legislation if successful.Campaigners for women’s “sex-based” rights reacted with delight to the news, including Magi Gibson, the poet, who posted on X/Twitter, that it was “game on” on in the “fight for the protection of women’s rights within the UK legal system”.Dennis Noel Kavanagh, a lawyer and the director of Gay Men’s Network, said: “Getting permission to go to the Supreme Court is really hard and very rare but FWS have it. The question ‘what is a woman’ in law will now be heard by our highest court. Massive news.”

Seriously, only a man can completely overthink this.

The question it is not that hard. But as biological facts do not fit what some people (men) want to hear no doubt come up with a complete pile of drivel will be produced.

"How we will decide what constitutes a woman" by reading a dictionary:
Woman - Adult human female - case closed.

So they have more men than women on the deciding committee?! How bloody dare they debate this!? Apologise to your Mothers!

I think the problem is how we think about what a "law" is. In science a law is something that describes reality, like say the Laws of Thermodynamics set out the relationship between energy, temperature and entropy as we observe them, not as we would like them to be, whereas it seems legal people think laws shape and affect reality. It seems bonkers to me as a scientist to apply this kind of thinking to something that is as completely grounded in the physical world just as much as thermodynamics is.

I think this will be a judgement worth reading. I am interested, it matters to me and I am making an assumption that everything we have ever discussed on FWR will be part of this judgement.

There is no way they can square the circle unless they go for XX Adult human female. They will have to come up with something that resolves our ongoing battle, if they do not, then they will not have fulfilled the functions, as Reed stated “I’m a great believer in clarity. And, where the law is in a muddle, I like to sort it out. And I see quite a lot of muddles,”

My worry is that the Scottish muddle is compounded by the GRA which was blocked by the UK government. Will Lord Reed's judgement, if the definition includes trans identified males, mean the block has to be lifted? I personally would hope a recognition that GRC's are too complex and cannot stand, because if we are our biological sex, a GRC's is incompatible with that judgement.

Don’t knock the House of Lords. They’ve been on the side of women a few times in this debate, when the government were being particularly obtuse.

Hopefully Baroness Nicholson will have a word with him over a cup of tea on the terrace.

Yes, I think you're right. They have two options: one is to say that "sex" in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, and therefore a "woman" is a biological adult human female. So when the Equality Act talks about single-sex exceptions, it is referring to exceptions for biological sex only. I am pretty sure this is what the people who drew up the Act intended.

The other option is to say that "sex" in the Equality Act consists of biological sex, plus people who have a gender recognition certificate, but also minus others who have a gender recognition certificate but in the opposite direction. So a "woman" would be most biological women, plus biological men with a GRC, and minus biological women with a GRC. If they decide this, then a trans-identifying man would be counted as a woman for the purposes of eg quotas of women sitting on boards, but a trans-identifying woman would not.

And then we would have the separate issue of single-sex refuges, prisons etc: my understanding is that under the Haldane ruling, in these cases, sex is still defined as referring to biological sex rather than legal sex. (I have never really understood the logic of this, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

If the judges go for the second option, then we really are in an almighty muddle.

The House of Lords has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

The utter misogynist bullshit is right there. If this was about society..this would be a question framed differently. It would be how do we as a society balance sex based rights versus gender based rights, and clarify in law the definition of man and woman to make clear when sex or gender applies?

The question is not even framed as deciding what a man and a woman is.

Nope ..clue is in the question. Old white men in the HoLs to decide what a woman is... dystopian, farcical and deeply offensive.

Are they:
Human
Adult
Female?

Then they are a woman.

Sorted mate. Now go do something else with your free time.

they can “decide” what they like, the elephant in the room will never go away

Yes because there will never be a situation where a man is changed to a woman. So you will have to put the descriptor ‘biological’ in front of the word woman. For important things (upto life and death situations) regarding medicines and surgery. And research and studies of social and criminal trends. And for single sex spaces - unless they say ‘biological women’ or are done away with. But if those spaces become mixed sex then they will look very different and will exclude lots of people. And will be more dangerous for a variety of people but particularly women.
And if the definition of woman is changed does that mean that schools will have to teach the difference between the word woman pre2025 and woman post 2025? How depressing is that?
Woman must mean woman otherwise it’s a mess.

Nature has already done that...

This is just a stupid headline.
This case is important. Women in Scotland have worked damned hard for this.

You can read the reasons etc in For Women Scotlands crowdfunder. They are launching this review
UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act

The Inner House of the Court of Session Judgment

We believe the Equality Act was drafted on the basis of the ordinary, common law understanding of the biological differences between the two sexes. The protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act is defined as a reference to a man or a woman, where man means “a male of any age” and woman means “a female of any age”. We think it is quite clear that these are distinct and separate groups and that “woman” is not a mixed-sex category.

However, in our recent judicial review, For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37, the Inner House took the opposite view and decided there is a relationship between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and Equality Act 2010 and held that the meaning of sex in the Equality Act incorporated the GRA framework.

The court decision stated that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in their acquired gender has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Separately, they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC and have a presumptive right to access the single-sex services of their acquired gender.

Fucking fuckers. The more I read this crap the swearier I get! "highly controversial issue" bollocks.

The Supreme Court has set the dates for hearing our case as 26 and 27th November 2024, with the 28th free if it is needed.

I hope Tribunal Tweets are covering it.

Of course, the original brief was: Tell us that women are chattels of men without telling us women are chattels of men.

Supreme Court hearings are broadcast live (and recorded) so you should be able to watch if you want.

Yes and I imagine TT will be covering it in full, and posters here as well, for anyone who wants to catch up later.