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

This is too fastmoving to comment on everything, but this exchange deserved to be preserved for posterity!

TWETMIRF · Today 15:31
Our water bill is in both my and my husband's name, am I non binary or do I have multiple personalities?
ArabellaScott · Today 15:33
Genderfluid.
😂😂😂

I'm sure it's unconscious but I think Ben's two-handed gesture is very illustrative when he's talking about physiological characteristics.

Beautifully enlightening for the Judges Go Ben 😀

'They're always men. But they would have gender reassignment protections'.

"Always men! "

By Jove I think she's got it!

Even if he has full surgery which hardly any of them want, let alone have

Tomorrow's upside down topsy turvy explanations as to how exactly a man magically becomes a woman because he says so is going to be interesting after this

I'm hoping it's one of those occasions when a judge pretends to be struggling when they're not really, just to get the concept declared absolutely crystal clear in court and to head off any suggestion later that it wasn't declared properly or that there was some ambiguity.

So not only do we not know what a woman is but we need to slice the trans community into increasingly tiny sections depending on operations and paperwork that legally no one can ask about.

I really really hope so!

Managed to arrange work to watch and very happy to hear BC speaking. The judges do struggle with the language don’t they?

(BC appears to have put on a bit of weight which has changed his face shape a little)

Section 9 women, a new gender!

School run was at the wrong time I see! Is there a way to go back to when Ben started and watch?

You can rewind the livestream, and it will be up on youtube in due course.

OH great! Good to know

BC now arguing that if a 'transwoman' is really indistinguishable from a woman and discriminated against on basis of sex, this is covered under perceptual discrimination.

Right, it appears that the phrase woman means a female of any age is in section 212 of the EA so we can have a section 212 woman to go with a section 9 woman

'Always Men' - sounds like an aftershave, doesn't it?

Excellent. Good to know I can catch up. I'm just happy seeing Ben's face again.

I don't really get the point of Ben's arguments.

It's reinforcing that a 'transwoman' doesn't need to be classed legally as female to be covered by anti discrimination legislation.

Does anyone else feel like they are watching "Terf TV"? 😂

(I keep thinking this because of all the usual suspects on the front row behind Ben Cooper 😀)

It does!

It's just frozen!

Circle of doom!