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 must be a man then, given that I don't wear make up.
So stupid.
Also - I'm with frail pensioner lady in the example given above. Are we supposed to be on the side of "Sue"?

Did she just say a can a "woman with a grc??"

'Did I say a natal man' ... 'transwoman ... ' 'trying to understand ...'

oh my fucking days.

My BIL and 2 of my male neighbours have longer hair than me and pretty much always have ponytails. This woman would say that they are women and I am a man because I have short hair.

A knotty matter, indeed.

Yes you did say "natal woman" when you meant MTF, lady judge. Do you understand how difficult it is to wade through now?

I thought she did. FML

Is the absurdity clear enough yet.

So that's what sonographers are looking for when figuring out the sex of an unborn baby. Mascara (or lack of) and hairstyles!

If we have laws based on/referencing sex then using 'gender' interchangeably with sex and claiming gender can change fucks it all up.

This is painfully obvious.

The questions from the Justices at the moment don’t suggest they can get their heads round it all, never mind give a learned judgment!

Join me on the man bench, we can manspread to our heart's content. I will be putting the snooker on at 1, I assume liking a sport also makes me a man?

This is a bloody carcrash!

I wear make up; should I get a GRC

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court are very interventionist and usually ask loads of questions. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they have a particular view.

If this goes the wrong way, we should all get a GRC.

So if judges in the highest court in the land are struggling to understand the verbal gymnastics how can anyone else reasonably interpret the legislation?

Are they sometimes asking really fucking stupid questions to ensure that the really fuckign stupid angle is covered and recorded?

There's a thin line between clever and stupid, alas.

I’m quite enjoying the questions, I know some of them are painfully obvious to those of us who have been in the trenches for years but I think it’s helpful for the judges to be walked through this like they are 5.

Gah, streaming won't cover a dog walk.

Probs good for the BP.

I hope there is a glossary of terms in that bundle!

To an extent I agree @Deadhouseplant but like pp not sure my blood pressure can take it!

I wish.

Can’t view the court so don’t know how old the judge is, but surely he will have heard of David Bowie, Boy George, the New Romantics and so many more! None of whom considered themselves to have changed sex by virtue of a bit of lippy!