For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

Interesting, because there is no requirement to go through with getting a GRC.

Prompted by some questions on this thread, I've just been googling to try and determine what legislation permits someone to get the sex on their passport changed without having a gender recognition certificate.

The only answer I have found is this (from an HM Passport Office document called "Gender Marking in Passports":

As passports are issued at the discretion of the Home Secretary in exercise of Royal Prerogative, there is no legislative requirement in domestic law setting out the gender requirement in the UK passport.

This seems like an extra level of dystopia just thrown in for fun: Not only can the gold standard of official documents tell a lie about the holder's sex, the legality of this lie is conferred by the king's magic touch. He changes someone's sex in the much same way that he cures scrofula.

Presumably there is some potential for judicial oversight of use of the Royal Prerogative by public bodies, just as there is when they act through legislative powers created by Parliament?

Swimmey doesn't seem to think men can get pregnant:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/3ae888f6-cd3c-4d30-9d84-9f93527c9ac0?shareToken=9b6456d26665ee70dca486efa2103251

Thank you for the info. It just adds to the madness and legal quagmire the government have created.

I guess that would be one way to do it... but there is presumably no such thing as a provisional passport??

BTW in case any MNers who have seen my comments previously about belief (and that I don't challenge the belief itself, that we all have a gender identity) and think I've suddenly become radicalised/ hacked... Nope.

This whole bonkers issue underlines my core point perfectly. We should all be free to believe in whatever feels right for each of us, whether that's it idea that we all have a gender identity, the idea that Jesus is the son of god etc etc.

But. We shouldn't ever have that ratified as true in law, healthcare, education, sports etc. I feel huge empathy for any trans(-identifying) person who has a genuine belief that they have a gender identity and that theirs mismatches with their body to the point that they are distressed. However, this doesn't mean I have to share their belief.

The full farce of the GRA is on display here. As is, quite possibly (hopefully), a difficult situation for the Passport Office and DVLA.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/11/uk-supreme-court-hears-challenge-to-scotland-gender-definition/

I think that for the legislators at the time, t the need for 'robust safeguarding' was obviated by the image they had in their minds of the people who would be getting these certificates - post-op transsexuals who had completed an extreme and rare physical process and needed the certificate for privacy reasons, just to avoid what would otherwise have been a deep mismatch between their modified bodies and their bureaucratic incarnation.
If the SC has regard to the intentions of Parliament when they interpret the law, surely they must be able to take into account the entire informational/attitudinal mindset that formed the context of those intentions? Today's use of the GRA, today's meaning of 'transition', is just so alien to what was envisaged in Parliament during the debate that the outcomes of the legislation-as-applied simply can't map onto any Parliamentary intent. There has been a seismic change that has just fractured what should have been the integrity between intention and application.

Ahhhhhhhh. There we go.

Thank you for your sleuthing!

Perhaps the king defers to god on this one? I wouldn't be surprised if we still have a few old bits of legislation knocking about that haven't been straightened out since Magna Carta and all that followed it.

To add: maybe the king could ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to confirm god's position on this... oh, wait... he's probably not going to be much use on moral guidance ATM. Because he's just resigned. Nothing else, obviously. 🙃

Its like bloody schrodingers GRC, if you have it you acquire all these "rights" but no ones allowed to ask if you have one or disclose if they know you have one so then people are forced to conclude that everyone with ID in a certain sex either is that sex or may have one of these certs but also you can get ID in another sex without one of these certs

Or... the other way round:

As nobody can ask for a GRC and gender reassignment provides protection from discrimination (e.g. nobody can lose their job because they have decided to undergo a process of gender reassignment), all is sorted. We've already established, thanks to Ruth Crawford, that a TW without a GRC is a man...

So...

A man who is undergoing gender reassignment deserves to be treated no less favourably than a man who isn't.

Sorted.

Edited to add...

Obviously they would be free to share their GRC with people to show that they are legally a woman. That's their choice. But there is no obligation on anyone to act as if they have one. And even if an employer knows about it, they can't force other staff members to accept the certified TW in women's spaces... unless of course a GRC really does change someone's sex for all purposes and there really is no such thing as a woman. As PPs have said, we'll all need GRCs at this rate, otherwise we're just random bodies waiting for sex assignment.

Thanks for all the updates, commentary and analysis. I didn't / don't have the time to sit and watch the tribunal.

Am I the only one who itched for one of Maya's companions to shout, "She's behind you!" when Ruth Crawford was waffling on about her? It would have been appropriate, after all, it's a bloody pantomime!

So an altered birth certificate records your GI, but an unaltered one records your sex.
The same document. The same word - sex.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with that. GI should be on a different document or an additional piece of information on the same document.
GI and bio sex are not in the same category of thing. They're not alternatives. They don't even contradict each other. Like chalk and cheese. Or cats and photosynthesis. Or clouds and a sense of humour.

Agree - even the word transgender and its meaning are new, hence the references to transsexuals.

It will be news to the IOC (and perhaps the FA) that not all passports correctly identify a person’s sex.

Brilliant work Arabella!!

I wonder whether this is a loophole in the law though?

The law is clear that a man undergoing gender reassignment should be treated no less favourably than a man who isn't, and a woman undergoing gender reassignment should be treated no less favourably than a woman who isn't.

But as far as I'm aware (IAAL), there is nothing in the law to say that a man who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment should be treated no MORE favourably than a woman who isn't/hasn't. And if the law considers that that man IS a woman, we can't fall back on the part of it that says a woman should be treated no less favourably than a man.

It doesn't matter to them, sadly. GI is sex in their eyes. Their approach is that bio sex is not conclusive, but self ID is.

Helleofabore · Today 07:54

Brilliant work Arabella!!

I'd had no idea that we had an artist among us! I can barely draw a straight line with a ruler.

So where does this leave the push to include the non-binary identity specifically in law then?

Dead in the water, I would guess.

In any case, what rights do people who identify as non binary not have?

'One of these things is not like the others…..'

As so often, the Muppets nailed it.

I stayed up late last night reading some of the incredulous comments on Twitter. I especially liked this;

Have been thinking about this if Haldene is effectively upheld and reinforced by the SC.

It's possibly the worst possible outcome for the government.

It means they have a law that is directly at odds with the public. The law is only there by public consent and if you have a law that people feel is unjust or unfair you run into problems.

Worst still Haldene effectively would be at odds with what we now reasonably are allowed to think.

Sex as we understand it in biological terms was found to be worthy of respect in a democratic society because so many people believe it cos material reality.

If Haldene says sex means legal sex and a legal fiction applies everywhere then it's at odds with every woman who feels distress or discomfort at seeing a penis. That's kinda problematic.

It means that women's rights as we understand them and expect them are erased in that ruling. And vouyerism laws are nullified.

That puts the government in a pickle and makes Wes Streeting look out on a limb because he's placed himself as saying the Darlington nurses are right (because they are).

Streeting would HAVE to say or do something further at this point.

It's an unholy mess for Labour if the SC rule in this way.

Boom.

Hope you're reading this, Wes. Hi 👋

In case you are... nobody has forgotten your participation in the FB group to weedle out all the women who were standing up for women's rights... however. Your recent epiphany is welcome. Hopefully you've recognised that gay people, women and children are being harmed in law, emotionally and (in the case of "gender affirming care") physically and mentally). Time to do something about it?

Indeed, Wes has admitted the reasonability issue. If the SC say he's wrong then he's already said the law is unreasonable. And it's time to inundate him with reasonably irritate correspondence.