For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

That AI woman is horrific!😂

@Shortshriftandlethal

The fight for women's rights has always been never-ending. This is no different. We just have to keep fighting.

Yes, if this court cannot decide, it will be passed back to parliament.

I think the "I won't push you on it" was lawyer-speak for "we both understand that this is total nonsense", and is ok. However, IANAL...

Leaving aside the unbelievably offensive notion that black or disabled women are equivalent to men (I know you aren't saying that, you're just giving the argument they'd make), it still doesn't follow. They believe men are women, lesbians believe they aren't... so lesbians can meet exclusively under GC beliefs but they can't form a lesbian group under the same beliefs? Unless they actively state it's a GC group?

Oh I give up. This is what happens when you try to parse the absolutely absurd. The law is an ass.

I'm impressed the judges are still following it enough to ask coherent questions. Alas the answers back are less coherent.

This man speaking is struggling too, he needs some of BoiledBeetles' chocolate.

Yes, now even this guy is pulling his hair out at the mess he's trying to navigate.

I think you've put your finger on the glaring issue here - any law that says that someone born male becomes female at the stroke of a pen, and is exactly the same under the law as a black woman or a disabled woman, or any other woman who was never anything other than female, is obviously a failed attempt at a law.

And as the judges' questions are illustrating brilliantly, impossible to interpret and apply rationally and fairly.

In essence, that is what we are here to find out. Parliament appears to have failed to think things through properly when introducing the GRA, leaving contradictions like this. Whenever there is a contradiction (real or apparent) in the laws passed by parliament, it is up to the courts to sort it out and decide what the laws actually mean. The fact that ScotGov is having to justify things like this shows, for me, just how badly drafted the GRA is.

The EU can go fuck itself.

I'd offer, but inexplicably there is very little left!

I honestly hadn't realised I'd eaten most of it!!I

This case is bad for my waistline.

Is it too early for 🍷?

Mine is gone!

I'm waiting until 5pm.

who are the people behind, I'm trying to spot people. I can see Maya

@Shortshriftandlethal

😂😂😂😂

Not watching so I have no idea how the EU is involved. I sometimes agree with the general sentiment of this post, but not sure of its relevance here

But if the court agrees that Sex = sex and not bio sex+legal sex, all the problems go away. It's only the insistence that the GRA modifies the meaning of Sex in the EA which yields complex, absurd and contradictory results. As Aidan O'Neill said yesterday.

The GRA is the nonsense legislation, not the EA.

Strasbourg ruled that surgery wasn't relevant.

But many acts are like this they add later amendments ie mobile phone and driving dpp versus berrito he was found guilty when he used his mobile phone to film an accident in the magistrates court. But at that point, it only said using the phone to ring or communicate. So he then took it to Crown court and got found not guilty, but the government didn't like that, so they took it to the further court. But again, he got found not guilty, so then they had to do an amendment to say anybody using a mobile phone for any reasons while driving. We'll get fine, which is why we now have the new amendment twenty twenty two, about mobile phones and drive in.
I've started studying with the Open University law and business access course Cos. I have never done studies since 16. And i'm forty four. And that's how I found that out

The EU and its courts have been mentioned several time in this session.

Julie Bindel behind Maya. Joanna Cherry in white (or pink?) blouse.

Ahh yes Julie and Joanna, thanks.

Yaah!!!! excellent