For Women Scotland written submission (UK Supreme Court)

[Justme56]

https://forwomen.scot/22/10/2024/uk-supreme-court/

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FWS-Supreme-Court-Briefing.pdf

These have made this available ahead of the court case in November.

• Lady Simler ( I missed the edit window in my previous post)

Ah, I've just found the answer to my own question. Ben is involved with the response written by Sex Matters which I'm going to read shortly.

I love the fact that we all know who Ben is, even without reading the Sex Matters document or his surname being mentioned.

I know, it's not as if it's an unusual name!

@Supporterofwomensrights 😀

@Supporterofwomensrights .The Sex Matters response won't disappoint you!
Does anyone know if it's possilbe to read the Amnesty (and others) submissions or do we have to wait for the day?

It didn't @larklane17. I was interested that the format and language was so different to the FWS submission.

I would so love to read the other side's arguments. I just can't guess what they could be, unless they are utterly insane points they make. I've read two submissions now highlighting the absurdity and illogicality of how laws will need to be interpreted if we lose, so I can't grasp how it could go that way. Please god.

Fingers crossed 🤞

This is a gem from the Sex Matters website discussing the case:

In the view of the Scottish Government, the EHRC and Lady Haldane the term “same sex” is a concept which can mean people who are of opposite [biological] sexes, while “opposite sex” can mean people of the same [biological] sex.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/was-sex-ended-in-2004/

I’ve read three submissions now and I think they’re all cogent in arguing their case.

They’ve also made me realise how poorly drafted the GRA2004 and EA2010 were - despite lots of reasonable points made by MPs and Lords at the time (pointing out the absurd situations that have since arisen) the Labour govts went ahead and passed these two Acts that have since had negative effects on many groups of people.

I genuinely hope that destabilising and negative effects were not intended by the drafters of the legislation; however, as to the intentions of the lobby groups asking for those changes in legislation at that time, I can’t possible speculate here.

Yes, @UtopiaPlanitia (the EA is badly written and the GRA is worse).

Spending lots of time reading and thinking about it, one of the things that is just devastaing is that the EA2010 allowed single sex exemptions. Even if we can all agree that 'sex' means 'sex' (which obviously we can't take for granted), I believe the EA2010 should have said that single sex services should not just be allowed but should be the default for things like: public toilets, changing facilities, sports, prisons, medical services, etc.

And then ALSO had an 'other services are allowed to be single sex if it's a proportionate means of addressing a legitmate aim', etc.

Because allowing them doesn't mean we get them. We are reliant on service providers choosing to apply the exemption and it turns out most service providers don't want to do that.

I couldn’t agree more @Supporterofwomensrights - there’s no point in legislation giving women a ‘potential’ right if no service provider or organisation is legally compelled to provide it. Women lose out if services they need are considered as being optional provision only.

If we win, then we as a collective can issue sex discrimination all over the shop, am saving up for potential to litigate, or if we lose, a year’s supply of Gin.

I feel like if we win things will continue as they are but if we lose it'd be a disaster. As the submissions say, there will be no such thing as discrimination on the grounds of sex if sex doesn't mean sex.

I have always comforted myself that if we lose the war (this being a battle), I'll identify as a multimillionaire and I'm sure society will fall over itself to accommodate ne regardless of my bank balance.

Exactly that, and that is the point that needs hammering home to Starmer and his ministers.

.

Bump - this case still needs gardening. I just planted a few carrots (in addition to the parsnips I planted earlier, oh dear, you can tell I don't really know anything about plants) but more are needed. If any further excuse is needed than that this is a crucial case, let's make Ben think this is a reliable specialism to continue and that his chambers will be paid on time when he does such cases :-)

Few more Parsnips planted!

The FWS and SM submissions are wonderfully clear, logical and rational.

The GRA is not a master law that overrides all subsequent laws in case of any contradiction, nor is it a magical spell which transforms men into women.

I do hope that when arguing before their lord- and ladyships, our barristers point out that yet another bizarre consequence is that the combo of easy-to-obtain and confidential GRCs + grouping women plus men with GRCs is also useless for planning, whether it is toilet space or maternity wards.
As we have been saying, this grouping serves no purpose except to lump in an impossible to quantify number of males with women.

Also they should ram home that a male with a GRC can be an unaltered, beardy 6-footer, not the slight, small, homosexual male with full GRS that most MPs at the time probably had in mind as a "transsexual".
The Supreme Court judges need to ask themselves a version of the Staniland question:
Did the drafters of the EA2010 intend for a fully intact middle-aged man to have the right to share communal changing and showers with 13-year-old girls?

Fingers crossed, anyway. Lady Haldane's judgement was logical and consistent in its interpretation but led to absurd results. The Inner House judges tried to remove some of the absurdity by being illogical and inconsistent in their interpretation. But both courts started from a false premise - that the GRA literally changes someone's sex - for all purposes.

I was looking to see who it was has been told they cant "intervene" (still cant) but came across this which I think is new. By MBM

For Women Scotland at the UK Supreme Court: who are the interveners?
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2024/11/14/for-women-scotland-at-the-uk-supreme-court-who-are-the-interveners/

Edited - my quesiton is answered in this article!

Leave to intervene was refused by the Court to two trans identified individuals, Professor Stephen Whittle, and Victoria McCloud.