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

Oh, it's Louise Irvine for the Scotgov. Apologies, I'd thought it was Dorothy Bain.

Running order:

https://genderblog.net/for-women-scotland-vs-scottish-govt/

Also, I'd thought EHRC were to be neutral, but that post says they're interveners on behalf of Scotgov.

Thank you, @WitchyWitcherson

Ta da!!

Also, I'd thought EHRC were to be neutral, but that post says they're interveners on behalf of Scotgov.

Yes basically they think the appeal should be dismissed, but the law is flawed and needs to go back to parliament to be resolved.

Thread specifically on the EHRC submission, with link to it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5215525-we-believe-there-are-far-reaching-problems-with-the-practical-application-of-the-equality-act-in-relation-to-this-definition-ehrc

Ta, Eresh.

Here we go

Who's this lady?

Morning all

No express disapplication to be found anywhere in the equality act.

I don't know what that means, larky

I think the EHRC's position is that ScotGov's interpretation of the law is correct, but that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs - because it trashes women's rights - and Parliament should sort it out.
As AO'N said - their submission is a compromise between warring factions within the EHRC.

Ah okay, thank you.

(sorry to be thick)

She says sex and gender are interchangeable.

And that someone who 'changes sex' loses the protections applied to their birth sex

I think their barristr is saying that there is nowhere that expressly says this does not apply to trans people in relation to same sex provision.

Ruth Crawford KC, ScotGov barrister

I wonder how many TRAs didn't realise they'd lose the protections of their natal sex (tbh it's not something that's ever crossed my mind either until this case!). Any TIFs planning on getting pregnant might start to ponder whether this is actually good for them... Highlighting this movement's misogynistic tendencies. Females will lose out, males will gain more rights and protections.

If they become completely the other sex, woudl they not logically lose the protection of gender reassignment?

Agreement by all parties that there is no third sex and gender she says

Well yes, this is logical.

And she says explicitly that "sex" section something has nothing to do with "sex" in section something else...

Ach, mea culpa.

Clear from SG lawyer - "there is no third sex or gender".

We seem to have lost an awful lot of genders suddenly.