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

It is controversial, though. That’s why we’re here

Yeah, I meant it's bollocks that it's controversial.

Not expressing myself well today. It shouldn't be controversial. Women are women are women, and men are not women. This should not be controversial. Flat-earthers should not be taking over.

Well thank goodness there are 3 men amongst the 5 decision makers, and that this baffling issue is finally being looked into.
Because otherwise, I just could be anything. I mean, I know that I have the phenotype of a woman, and have got pregnant and given birth, but I haven't done a DNA test, and as we all know, it's impossible to tell what someone is without that.
So I definitely need a Judge to look at the evidence.
I am so grateful that after half a century on this earth, I will finally get some closure on this issue.

I mean also, how do I even know I'm human. Maybe I'm actually a turnip, because turnips are a very disrespected vegetable and are only called turnips instead of humans because people are reactionary and right wing.

Thanks for the heads up on those dates, I will clear the decks and be watching. Also looking forward to the MN thread.

This is where "balance" gets you. Peoples feelz are treated as equals to facts.

"All the scientific evidence and experimental data clearly show the earth is an oblate spheroid. However Bazza27s feeling it must be flat is an equally valid point of view and must be respected".

But only because Bazza27 is a bloke.

True that.

Read what @Imnobody4 has written: This is just a stupid headline.
This case is important. Women in Scotland have worked damned hard for this.

Please take the trouble to understand. It is an important hearing that deserves more than smart, sarky responses

It's quite easy at this level because we're dealing with intellectual problems - so, or very nearly, says the judge.

Well, mate, what a woman is might be merely an intellectual problem for you, but for half the population it's one that's very much grounded in physical reality.

Ah that's not at all what I meant. Lost in translation. Sorry.
It's that we're forced to spend our time, energy and money on fighting through the courts for something so absolutely obvious.
The back story is that I was spiralling because bloody Heartstopper has reared its stupid head again and that sent me into a furious spin. It came out at a time my DD seemed to be getting sucked into this shit so i was venting about the absolute grotesque stupidity of this world.
I was absolutely NOT minimising the efforts of those amazing women. Sorry to have upset anyone - I realise that 'tone' doesn't come across, especially from someone who doesn't post much.

The HoL has been separate from the Supreme Court for many years. Fortunately Baroness Nicholson will have nowhere to ‘have a word over a cup of tea’.

Go the rule of law!

He has no idea what constitutes either. And he should be fired.

So true. What is a turnip. What is a dog. What is the meaning of life

who knew that a wee arse was even thiing this stuff

Well, to sndwer @Igneococcus ‘s question, they can ask the australians because Sall Grover apparently asked it and we all got told.

It all depends upon which department of the shop you buy from.

i mean everyone knew what a woman was when previously denied the right to vote, have an education, play football & married off for political gain etc. seems to be no problem knowing the female sex when it comes to FMD.

why all the confusion know? It really is a first world problem (use the word loosely here) compared to what women are facing under the Taliban. Yet the focus in this country is on whether a man can identify as one 🙄

Quite.

They could take the vote away from us and see how many "women" are still women then. Or get rid of washing machines so the women have to spend half their lives washing everything by hand. See how many "women" are left then.

The issue is not lack of appreciation for Women Scotland and their herculean efforts.

The issue is this article, which the thread is about, voicing the opinions of a smug man who is chuckling about how he is without emotion and with his very superior intelligence going to decide the tricky question for women of what they are allowed to be in law, is already clear that his plan is 'to make it fit modern society' which makes it very obvious his main goal is a version of 'woman' that is mostly all about men, and has no self awareness to realise the very obvious sexist offensiveness of his behaviour here.

That, I am incredibly pissed off about. As I am that our legal future is now in the hands of this man whose behaviour so far through this article does not endear him to me in any way or convince me he has the most basic respect for women, and whose decision could be pretty much the end of women's equality and rights in the UK. And there is absolutely nothing I can do about this except be sarcastic on social media, but nicely and not in my shrill voice in case someone whose priority is the feelings of people with penises reports me and HQ get cross.

And yes, if our very legal existance can be wiped out in this easy, jolly way by a bunch of privileged men with loud voices talking about how 'progressive' it all is, then it's highly naive to believe your vote is any safer. Or your right to own property. Or to not be raped by your husband. You know, all those 'rights' a current member of the cabinet is so cross with us for 'hoarding' instead of making sad men happy like we're supposed to exist to do. We will as a sex class (which will continue to exist in fact however Reed pontificates) go on as always historically, having only the rights men grant us as convenient to them at the time, on loan, with return demanded as and when it suits them. I'm sorry for being insufficiently demure and gracious about all this.

Some of the replies are out of line, saying he should be fired, etc. He's a judge. For Women Scotland have brought this case and the court needs to decide it.

I'm worried about this case though. The court can only interpret the law. And U.K. law on this is in a complete muddle. I fear this could lead to an undesirable outcome, then we will be stuck with the Supreme Court judgment until there is legislative change. And that won't happen with our current government. His comments about keeping the law up to date as society develops are concerning.

For those interested there is a summary of the case here:

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.html

I'm worried about this case though. The court can only interpret the law. And U.K. law on this is in a complete muddle. I fear this could lead to an undesirable outcome, then we will be stuck with the Supreme Court judgment until there is legislative change. And that won't happen with our current government. His comments about keeping the law up to date as society develops are concerning.

I know what you mean.

The problem is that gender ideology is now a more powerful ‘equality’ than sex or disability or other religion. There’s even the threat of confusing hate crime laws if you try and argue against it on the basis of sex v gender.
’Gender’ is more important than safeguarding.
‘Gender’ is more important than health.

@Anastomosisrex I sincerely hope he is indeed ‘without emotion and with his very superior intelligence going to decide the tricky question’ of whether a person with a GRC that identifies them as female is a woman for EA purposes.

That’s what judges in the U.K. are supposed to do.

An alternative system might look something like the US, where appointments - and judgments - are political. And look where that’s got women’s rights.

He’s not deciding it on his own. There are five Law Lords/Ladies sitting - two of whom are women. (Unfortunately that’s the maximum number of women that could sit because they are the only two currently in the SC. That’s a separate issue!!) If they don’t agree, then the majority decision will prevail. So it’s entirely possibly that he (whichever way he personally decides) could be overruled.