For Women Scotland heading for Supreme Court

[Imnobody4]

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.

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.”

www.thetimes.com/article/088ae0ce-fba9-4b97-8331-01a32195bef5?shareToken=3ada340957f5d2af2e20b01a7c15da3b

I've only just been able to tune in. Who is this speaking now? Is he representing the lesbian groups?

I keep thinking this every time the next batshit thing comes up, and the next, and the next...

But nope.

Most of the media, and The Righteous idiots whom they serve, have the situation neatly locked down in a See/Hear/Report No Evil circle jerk.

Aidan O'Neill KC, representing FWS.

Ok Michael Foran has submitted a paper - interesting.

Could RMW have done similar?

But also worth bearing in mind she was one of the Court of Appeal judges who found for Harry Miller in his case against the College of Policing.

Just realised this is the BTP strip search guidance issue.

RMW applied for permission to intervene, along with trans judge Master Victoria McLeod, I think both with the Good Law Project but I might be misremembering. This was refused.

Please someone direct me to a transcript of this afterwards as i am barely getting snippets.

Not sure I've ever heard one man use the word patriarchy (with correct context) so much

The recording will be made available on YouTube on the supreme court's page at some point after the hearing, and there will be a transcript there.

Tribunal tweets is giving an overview

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1861350480472924453?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I love this man - he complete gets it. Can we add him to our special list with Ben Cooper please?

These provisions are supposed to be operated by people in every day practice eg hospitals.... In to this now and single sex services

Interesting - the men are getting confused, and Aidan O'Neill KC is having to stick to his presentation structure. I think this is because none of it makes sense, so going off piste is not possible.

I remember when getting my first mortgage and was offered an endowment mortgage - my solicitor said if you don't understand it, don't do it. Precisely.

Without the structure the batshittery becomes off the scale so rendering it uncomprehensible.

He is showing the bonkers very clearly.

Ooh it's getting snippy

I wonder if HRH Arabella of this parish is there.

Judge is really confused I think. Not great news.

Must be...!

Interesting - the men are getting confused, and Aidan O'Neill KC is having to stick to his presentation structure. I think this is because none of it makes sense, so going off piste is not possible.

I fully agree.

(Re arabella not the judge.)

This judge's remarks are very concerning, I don't think he has a clue!

It was all absurd from the start. It's absurdity all the way down.