For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

otherwise we're just random bodies waiting for sex assignment

Which is, lest we forget, precisely what legislator Dawn Butler MP (Lab) believes. 'A child is born without sex'. She was absolutely serious.

Thankyou to everyone who has provided commentary on here.
I managed to tune in to Aidan O'Neil yesterday and the man before him.

One of the female judges asked a question about female only medical procedures, eg smears and I thought she was going to go there with a question on where the health provider would stand should a man with a grc demand one - given that a woman with a grc wouldn't technically qualify. Did anyone else catch that?

It strikes me that when I first found the feminism boards here I thought a lot of what I was reading was conspiracy theory and pedantry and of course it wouldn't happen because common sense would prevent it, then just a few years later the (now obvious) madness is being brought out into the open in the supreme court.

I'm feeling reasonably irritated. And I love a bit of correspondence.

Currently in the thick of it with some other correspondence (related to this) that is very important on a personal/family basis but I'll definitely be finding time to write to Wes Streeting at some point.

Did the SG ever mention their position on the whole 'legally female' fiction vs TW still inheriting titles as males thing?

Unfortunately this scenario depends on media publicity and/or swathes of the general public being interested enough to bother seeing what's been going on.

Whatever the result of the case I would expect the SC judgement to capture the fact that there was consensus that if you do not have a GRC you remain your natal sex. That is huge by itself. To be able to write to organisations and state that the SC has confirmed that a person without a GRC remains their birth sex and so does not have a right to override single sex provision will put a lot of organisations in a difficult position. If they ignore this element of the ruling then they may face sex discrimination claims because they are favouring gender identity over the PC of sex.

According to both sides if a person doesn’t have a GRC they remain their natal sex. Have the government institutions who issue government identification, such as DVLA - driving licences, and Passport Office, in a persons chosen but not certified gender actually been providing fraudulent or unlawful documentation?

For example IW has said they don’t have a GRC but all their paperwork says they are female. How if only a person with a GRC is permitted to do this?

I also don't understand why this is allowed. For me it's an "ahead of the law" loophole which should be closed.

Whatever the result of the case I would expect the SC judgement to capture the fact that there was consensus that if you do not have a GRC you remain your natal sex. That is huge by itself. To be able to write to organisations and state that the SC has confirmed that a person without a GRC remains their birth sex and so does not have a right to override single sex provision will put a lot of organisations in a difficult position. If they ignore this element of the ruling then they may face sex discrimination claims because they are favouring gender identity over the PC of sex.

I agree.

Indeed. And many women were banned and suspended with no end to the suspension for stating it. Including if I remember correctly, pointing out that men were being offered smear tests. Apparently that was a conspiracy theory and just someone being hysterical.

You need to use a pencil or similar in conjunction with the ruler - HTH

Admittedly I didn't google terribly hard, but a 2021 BBC article stated that 5,871 full GRC's had been issued since 2005. Even if this has increased tenfold, that is still a lot of trans without a GRC (and <18's can't get one).

So, applying the Scottish Govt's evidence yesterday, if you can't show a birth certificate with your new gender on it, you have no right to be in opposite sex facilities/services?

Equally, if you are a pregnant transman (biological female) with a GRC, you have broken your oath to live as a man and so your GRC deserves to be rescinded?

I wish that Aidan O'Neill KC had pointed out that the SG has proudly announced that they recognised 24 genders a couple of weeks ago. Ruth Crawford KC seemed 'confident' that there were just 2.

Those judges are going to have a shitty Christmas wading through this.

I have a question. The judges were clear that any ruling needs to be "workable in practice".

Let's say they rule in favour of ScotGov. So you can exclude males without a GRC but you can't exclude males with a GRC. No-one can ask to see a GRC, but you can ask to see a birth certificate, which may be altered based on the GRC.

Let's say you run a small lesbian group which usually has around 30 attendees. Women turn up and you let them in without question. Two burly six foot males turn up. One has a GRC and one doesn't, but no-one knows this. You ask to see their birth certificates. They have not brought them. You turn them away.

Can you then be found guilty of discrimination? Or is the burden of proof on the man with the GRC and you're allowed to exclude him unless he proves he is legally female? Does it make a difference that the females weren't asked to show proof of sex?

The same would apply if a male walks into a female changing room in a shop or leisure centre - are staff allowed to ask for proof he is legally female?

I'd like to think that the judges would consider, and perhaps actually explain, how things would work in practice, if they do rule this way.

To add. Mridul Wadhwa, he without GRC. A biological male. Supported by so many at Edinburgh Rape Crisis.

Asking raped women about orgasms. Telling women to reframe their trauma. Claiming to be a woman as he wore a sari. His ego, misrepresentation, and salacious behaviours supported by those in positions of power.

If not for JKR and other smaller fundraisers, and all of those who spoke out, at great personal cost, there would be no safe space for traumatised women in Edinburgh.

Things will never go back to where they were after this Supreme Court hearing. Whatever the decision.

But that is already the case, in theory. Even with a GRC, a MCW doesn't have the right to override single sex provision. They can be excluded, not simply because they are male (as is the case for MCW without a GRC), but to protect women's privacy, dignity and safety in situations where those human rights are in play. Eg women's communal toilets, changing rooms and therapy groups. Probably not the women's hairdresser's, but it could be justified in certain circumstances.

That's where the problem lies - it's not a blanket ban and Stonewall law training has made providers think that they would be inundated with claims because the bar for exclusion - even in the case of communal facilities - is too high to reach in practice. Which is nonsense.

And they don't care about the possibility of being inundated with claims from women of sex discrimination or Article 8 human rights violations because who cares about women, and they are just bigots who should self-exclude anyway.

I also agree with a previous poster that there's a key point, not only about how the equality act was intended, but also how the GRA was intended. Even if you accept that the GRA says males can be legally female for all purposes, the intention of the act was that this would apply to a tiny number of male transsexuals, who had had (or were about to have) genital surgery.

As far as I'm aware, twenty years ago in 2004, there wasn't really any concept of "gender identity" or "transgender". Only "transsexual". So basically the GRA is now being applied to a group of people that didn't exist when the law was made. It seems like this shouldn't legally be allowed.

"According to both sides if a person doesn’t have a GRC they remain their natal sex. Have the government institutions who issue government identification, such as DVLA - driving licences, and Passport Office, in a persons chosen but not certified gender actually been providing fraudulent or unlawful documentation?"

What definitions does the DVLA and passport office claim to be applying to the M/F markers? The point of agreement by both sides, if agreed by the SC, suggests that self ID does not have any legal standing, even if validated by a doctor so should not be used on identity documents

Perhaps I am being a bit dumb/stupid but where exactly would a man actually get smeared if he requested a smear test ?

See my point about the US proxy culture war and political capital for opposition parties.

they have decided to undergo a process of gender reassignment

It'd be good to have this sorted. I’ve had workplace training on human rights that explicitly declared a verbal statement of ‘I’m now a woman’ was sufficient to fall under the legal pc of being in the process of gr. Will the SC rule on a legal understanding of what it means to undergo the process of GR?

I don't know how it's permitted but I do know that it is permitted. You can change the sex on a passport and driving licence without a GRC. Just not birth certificate.

To add to your point, the phrase "gender identity" was used in the Goodwin judgement, which the GRA was a response to, so the phrase was known at the time - but it was not used in the GRA (let alone the EA).

I think it’s about turning theory into practice. If the SC states clearly that a person without a GRC remains their natal sex then the challenge becomes much easier. The SC is effectively saying gender identity is irrelevant when balancing the proportionality of single sex provisions. An organisation should not take the impact on people with a particular gender identity into consideration when assessing the need for or access to single sex provision. Single sex provision goes back to natal sex plus a decision whether or not a person with a GRC can be excluded (which again will become clearer following the SC judgement)
The number of people who hold GRC is small so it becomes a very different debate. My understanding is that India Willoughby has said they don’t have a GRC, I assume Eddie Izzard doesn’t so they are legally as well as biologically male and we will have the backing of the SC to say so. It then will be much more difficult for organisations to justify given them access to women’s services, awards etc.

He might be invited for one if his medical records said F.

He might be either deluded, and think he actually needed one, which is almost pitiful, or he might be delighted at the thought of embarrassing and humiliating a (probably female) HCP by turning up in the clinic/surgery/whatever and asking her to perform one via his non-existent/neo vagina. Such fun! And could generate lots of gratifying social media content afterwards.

😆but seriously that was a fab drawing up thread.

If he is that deluded then he needs psychiatric help...or biology lessons