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

Ooh it's Ben

<swoon>

Fair enough, I just think he over egged it and took too much time.

He looks different to how I remember but that voice is unmistakable

New angle lets us see other attendees - have spotted Naomi Cunningham, Michael Foran and Joanna Cherry so far...

You can see Joanne Cherry and Julie Bindel behind Ben.

And Maya.

Fiona McAra next to Naomi Cunningham? And Maya Forstater next to her.

I thought Naomi Cunningham must be in the court as I keep hearing furious very loud typing. 😂

For those frustrated the judges are confused about whether a 'transwoman' is a biological man or a woman, they are reflecting the confusion amongst the public too- the use of these words by trans groups has been deliberate to obfusticate what extremists like Stonewall have been demanding.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/
But worrying the judges are so clueless.

I can now see Maya, Fiona, Naomi from Sex Matters, Michael Foran,Julie Bindel, Kate Barker and Joanna Cherry. Excellent terfy turnout, and of course could see the amazing FWS women when their KC was speaking.

At least Freda Wallace isn't there, making a show of himself!

Dammit, school run

https://www.gov.scot/publications/for-women-scotland-ltd-appellant-v-the-scottish-ministers-respondent-supreme-court-hearing-statement-of-case/

Who has been there from the 'other side' ?

Nobody as yet. It'll be the Scotgov lawyer/lord advocate ... Dorothy Bain, iirc and Amnesty are interveners.

The other side put their case tomorrow so would expect the audience to be seated differently tomorrow. A friend is in the overflow room, will ask if she has spotted anyone.

The judges will be given written submissions and skeleton arguments to consider. They also go back and watch the hearing again and have a transcript , so don’t worry too much that it was not a lot of time to get the points across.

Thank you - I know they spend ages before coming to a judgment so assumed they'd be going back over what they've heard in court

Is it possible that the judges aren't clueless, but simply asking for clarity for people watching/reading the transcript?

I'm not watching myself, so I can't tell.

Edited to say: sorry, I've gone back now and seen that a PP already asked that question.

Ben perfect answer. Parliament didn’t change the sex PC but created the GR PC I.e. implying sex & gender reassignment are different

Sorry, Fiona McAnena

I've had to leave the house and my phone can't handle this, but I was getting lost anyway. Will read summaries later.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/11/what-is-a-woman-supreme-court-hears-landmark-legal-case/

This is the question

'What does it mean, to 'live as a woman'?'

Go on, judge. You're nearly there.