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

"The campaign group For Women Scotland are not for trans women"

Well, no shit Sherlock, they are for women.

They really can't cope with the fact that not everything is about them, can they?

We knew Amnesty were the worst kind of misogynists, this just proves it once again.

Sex Matters are saying the judgement won't be until spring 2025, so we have a long wait.

This is the line trans rights activists have been pushing for a long time. It's like going back in time to 2018.

In the EA explanatory notes a blanket exception is described on more than one occasion, even specifically mentioning GRC holders potentially can be excluded in the case of sexual violence services.

Strange argument IMO as they are saying that the exclusions in place are a high threshold (no case law of this high threshold)

And then claim If the EQA did not intend to consider trans women as women, it would not have included a process of exclusion in the first place.

Very odd one might easily argue that, if this was so, that TWAW then there would have been no exceptions in the ACT.

BONKERS

How is this position compatible with the Geneva Convention requirement for male and female prisoners to be segregated?

But WE all know that the blanket exclusion of ALL males from female sing sex places is proportionate because it is the only way to tell the bad guys from the good.

How is that so hard to understand? (Rhetorical question, you don't need to tell me)

Fuck me.
That Amnesty submission.
As Rumpole would have said....

Very odd one might easily argue that, if this was so, that TWAW then there would have been no exceptions in the ACT.

Exactly.

I hope this is something the judges will ask themselves.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 11:29

Came here to post that too! Amnesty think blanket exclusions of all male people are illegal because they don't meet the proportionate means to a legitimate aim test.

They aren't half talking shite. Why would the SSE have been included, if not for just these kinds of situations? It makes no sense, otherwise.

A law which creates a legal fiction ought to be interpreted and applied as narrowly as possible.
If Parliament had passed a law saying that fans of legal dramas on TV could, upon quoting some lines from shows and paying for a certificate, become members of the Supreme Court for all purposes, I bet the judges would have no difficulty in restricting the application of such a law.

Some councils and police are quoting 'Safelives' guidance as the reason they won't fund any single sex rape/ domestic abuse support. I have seen complaint responses where they say even a small SS group amidst a mainly mixed sex 'gender based' service (which of course men who are trans can access but women who need SS support can't) is a blanket ban on men who say they are trans in that small group. This reflects what Amnesty is saying too. MPs must know this. The exclusion of vulnerable women from support is devastating lives.

The court case may define what a woman is but won't resolve the situation for women as TRAs are dominating the VAWG sector. The Equality Act needs to be changed to require SS services in some situations, not just allow them.

https://safelives.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SafeLives_Transgender_Inclusion_Guidance_Eng_Wales_2024.pdf
"The right to access single-sex spaces after domestic and/or sexual violence is currently being tested through legal cases. This underlines the importance of a full spectrum of provision which services the needs of different individuals and groups within society. The Equality Act 2010 provides an exemption for single-sex spaces to provide a different service, or refuse a service, to a Trans person in cases where they can demonstrate that doing so is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This does not permit single-sex services to have a blanket ban on Trans service users. Entry to any domestic abuse service should not be limited to meeting the right gender criteria."

None of the councils funding 'gender based' abuse services for 'women 'ask for GRC certificates to my knowledge. Men just have to say they 'identify' as a woman or non binary.

And on their website the LGO (local government ombudsman) has an example where they are refusing to investigate complaints from women excluded from abuse support services (as they need SS support) as the LGO say council VAWG commissionners can decide for themselves until legal cases are resolved.

So TRAs can continue to exclude women from help indefinately- as an example Sarah's legal case has been delayed again til next year (for a single SS rape support group amidst all the mixed sex 'gender ' based ones ). It's a sort of nasty punishment for women not lying men are women I think. It's just surprising some of the unpleasant people targeting vulnerable women are VAWG leads!

I used to donate to AI because I admired their work on the death penalty.

Cancelled the direct debit when I realised they were claiming that men could be women. Not just identify as women.
Be women.

(appropriating a KFism here) but Amnesty are Cucked.

Does anyone know what time the case/livelink start tomorrow?
Thanks.

@Villagetoraiseachild. 10.30 a,m. start.

From Sex Matters email.

You can watch the case online on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel (you don’t need to log in or watch in real time).
The hearing is in Court 1 of the Supreme Court in London. It is open to the public but there are limited seats (about 70 spaces). There will also be overflow rooms with screens set up, so hopefully everyone who comes along will get to watch. Both days start at 10:30am.

• Tuesday 26th is FWS and Sex Matters
• Wednesday 27th is the Scottish Government and the EHRC

Tribunal Tweets will be live tweeting. Read all the written submissions that have been published so far. The judgment is expected in spring 2025.

Thank you for links to hearing.

I don’t understand how Amnesty thinks a case by case proportionality test would work. On what basis would it be proportionate to include one man whilst simultaneously excluding another? There would need to be something that distinguished man A from man B like “man A still has a beard which might freak out the ladies”. How would they distinguish?

I think they know it would be unworkable. The aim would be to insist on it, then complain about how unfair and impracticable it was. Then claim that the only practicable alternative was blanket inclusion.

@Signalbox well quite and it would mean a lack of clarity for organisations. The law, as a fundamental principle should always provide clarity. which is the whole point of this case.

i am sure that this will not be something that most senior of judges in our land will allow to pass by.

I imagine there will be a comprehensive live read-along thread here as well.

I think they know it would be unworkable. The aim would be to insist on it, then complain about how unfair and impracticable it was. Then claim that the only practicable alternative was blanket inclusion.

Yes exactly, and that claim is how most trans rights activists and adjacent organisations have approached it to date.

Sorry meant to quote your post @Snowypeaks