For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5182666-for-women-scotland-heading-for-supreme-court

We've all got to make a living.

It would have been hilarious if the judges had called that out.

The argument is that, if the definition of women includes trans women, any association for lesbians must admit trans women who are attracted to women and, if they don't, they can be sued for discrimination. However, if the association is for gender critical lesbians, they can exclude trans women (although, as you say, that probably doesn't prevent a trans woman claiming to be GC in order to get round the restriction).

This yet again highlights the ludicrousness of the TRA position. For me, it reaches the heights of stupidity (actually, I want to use a much stronger word here) when lesbians are branded as bigots for refusing to sleep with trans women.

Back to parliament.......that gives me a sinking feeling - given the Labour party's stated intentions.

Does anyone know who this man is? And who he represents!

He's Coppel for EHRC.

.

But can't a private group just not admit people as they see fit? I mean the pub darts team aren't going to admit me, because I'm shit at it. The lesbian group could just say 'we're full at the moment' .

Is he supposed to be neutral?

No. He agrees with SG interpretation of the law as it stands. But thinks it is bad law that needs parliamentary intervention

So the law allows for spaces that are restricted based on personal belief? Yet nobody is allowed to create a space for women only based on the belief that a man is never a woman, no matter how he feels about it?

So the law allows for spaces that are restricted based on personal belief? Yet nobody is allowed to create a space for women only based on the belief that a man is never a woman, no matter how he feels about it?
Great point@NonPlayerCharacter

Yes, but... the absurdity of the GRA is now becoming clear, which means our fight also becomes clear. Eventually the fuzzy language that has been used to hide the absurdities will fall away, and the issues of women's rights being destroyed will be writ large for everyone who simply hasn't understood our point. The public will then say hell no. Just like the US has just done in the recent election. Labour needs to think on.

I know what you mean, but somebody has to fulfil certain roles in court cases - Crawford presenting the case as best as she can, i.e. uselessly cos it's useless - give the judges the chance to ask probing questions which highlight the uselessness of the case.

It's like lawyers defending the worst monsters imaginable, being tried for rape or murder or something - somebody has to take the role of defender, and do it to the best of their ability, otherwise the guilty party could appeal because they didn't have fair representation, and maybe even go free.
'Only doing my job' is fair when it comes to lawyers, I think - somebody has to defend the bad guys, or it's not the system of justice as we know it..

I'd buy Crawford a drink, if I met her in a GC lesbian bar😁

Problem is, Labour will inevitably attempt to "modernise" the GRA in the new year. It is one of their manifesto commitments.

I recall there is a cut off point with the number of members; 25 springs to mind, so if your group is smaller you can protect it but not if 25+

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this thread will clarify my vague recollection.

Monty Python were way ahead of us.

I want a baby.

You can't have a baby. You don't have a womb. Where is it going to gestate - in a box?

Oh @MarieDeGournay I know someone has to do it. I'm not going to give them any sympathy though.

Imagine the impact if she had have done that though. It would have been bloody delicious

@Shortshriftandlethal yes, but Biden wrote all sorts of crap into law, the public saw through it and turfed the democrats out, so no matter what Labour does, it won't be able to fight an electorate that disagrees, but like the poll tax.

Problem is, Labour will inevitably attempt to "modernise" the GRA in the new year. It is one of their manifesto commitments.

Yes but the complexity, contradictions and impact on women is now out there and 'legally' out there. They will have to take account of all of this

With a damn sight more publicity than it was originally given.

*bit, not but

It's fascinating that they never, ever even try to use the example of straight men instead of gay women. Because it's so fucking obvious a straight man wouldn't be attracted to a "woman" because of a GRC. But women are expected to accommodate men.

And any trans woman with a GRC who uses 'her' penis to rape, presumably should also have their GRC rescinded?

You've raised the possibility of a lesbian group not admitting members because they are shit at it: 'I'm sorry, Ms X, but we've spoken to several of your exes and they all say your shit at it'😂