For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

Me too so I took the chance to let the dog out. Now I can claim to have missed it rather than not understand it.

If they could just acknowledge that humans can't change sex, this facade ends....

If professional legal scrutiny doesn't change Labour's intentions - how on earth are the uneducated general public going to do so?

this is why i think it is very important to counter all claims of, say, "gender based violence" and say "no, you are talking about sex based violence"

but probably not at the butterfly place because i just had a look and they are all seething that no trans people are being invited to talk, and that the transphobes are really getting it socked to them. As though we are all looking at different courtrooms.

@HotSlippergirl

'Yes, I am hoping they will quietly drop the manifesto commitment after this court case and after the disaster gender bollocks has been for the Democrats ( it does seem this was a factor for swing voters in particular).'

👍 swing voters are the most important group in any election, and this issue will produce and lot more swing voters.

I think this is where the Judges will be making their decisions.

Catching up very late to the party...

I'm a bit concerned that a "workable in practice" example is that women cannot exclude men from single sex spaces / women-only things generally and we just have to suck it up.

Which I'm sure isn't the way it was intended, but possibly how it falls out with the law as it stands?

But if that's what's being argued, it's totally contradictory. You can have a space based on belief except for when you can't?

I know you're not saying this, but you're a lawyer so I'm hoping you can explain this? How is a completely contradictory law supposed to work? How can they even argue it?

I've just eaten a large piece of cake to help raise my blood sugar and ability to concentrate but it's failed. The cake was lovely though. I'm now going to make a cuppa and see if this helps. I doubt it will.

I admire your optimism.....but Starmer has given no indication, so far, as being someone who is willing to change his mind or back track on policy commitments. We'll see.......next year is when they'll attempt to modernise the GRA.

My brain had officially melted. Off to watch the snooker instead.

If this issue went to a public referendum, I think we can guess which way it would go...

@Shortshriftandlethal

'If professional legal scrutiny doesn't change Labour's intentions - how on earth are the uneducated general public going to do so?'

The uneducated general public will be educated, it is already happening. Particularly after the sports issues, and the Olympics - men are now saying WTF.

I know it feels like an uphill battle, but look how far we have come - Maya, Allison, Jo won their fights crowd funded by us.

I can take no more. I'll come back later to catch up

The appellant is sex matters because they lost the court below this this is the supreme court. Therfore if they lose this there is no higher court or further court cases.
Our law is common law it takes from acts statutes and case law.

I wonder if the Government will come up with changes and then kick it off to the Lords and thence into the long grass. I don;t see how they can deal with this if they bring it forward. It is nonsense and they must understand that

we'll never get a referendum - it will be locked into an eternal death spiral of how to word the question. Because as we know, depending on how the question is worded people can be more or less tolerant of trans people.

so if the wording says trans women - people think "aha, a woman, for sure she should use the ladies"

but if the wording says man with trans identity - people think "fuck that shit NO"

I missed my Art class to watch this, not sure it was worth it tbh!

Littemissgobby

The appellant is FWS. SM are intervenors.

Our law is common law it takes from acts statutes and case law.
Common law is law established from case law and precedent, not statutes. It can change.

I'm losing the will to live

Because a trans woman with a certificate is a subsection of women like say black women or disabled women are so therefore can't be excluded if it's over 25 people. It's up to the court now to decide is that right or wrong

Yes this would work

Yes, but I think Labour are simply going to embed the problem even more.......and this will create even more battles and obstacles going forward. It's never ending.

Fair enough but it still stands this js the top court

If I was a judge I'd be worried about a post lunch food coma, he is not the most dynamic of advocates.

And quite frankly when the Judge says "I won't push you on it" they bloody well should.