For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

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.

Yes. You don't even need a doctor's approval if you use the "crossdresser route" (why do crossdressers need to lie about their sex on their passport exactly?)

It's utter madness that you are allowed to falsify sex on ID documents.

I also had middle of the night musings. Perhaps one of the thread's lawyers can check my reasoning?

If the SG's argument holds that 'section 9 women' (males wiith a GRC) are women, I think an impossible logic loop is created.

If I'm acting in an 'official capaicty' (perhaps assigning nurses to people who who have requested same-sex care, or as the organiser of a lesbian association) I have no right to know whether someine has a GRC. If they tell me, or I happen to find out, it is an offence for me to share the information.

As agreed in court, to do my job of excluding males without a GRC and admitting males with a GRC I cannot go by appearance or demand to see a GRC. I can demand a birth certificate.

Some, many, or all of the males admitted on the grounds of having a female birth certificate will be visibly male. So by admitting them to the association, or assigning them to the job, I am.revealing that they have a female birth certificate. Which I can legally do.

But the only way they can have a female birth certificate is if they have a GRC.

So if I reveal they have a female birth certificate, I also reveal they have a GRC. Which I legally can't do.

So a visibly male person with a GRC must be treated as a woman; but that inevitably reveals they have a GRC - which is illegal, so they cannot be treated as a woman.

It was me! Thanks for letting me know. But really there should be captions in real time. I know only too well the accuracy isn't always there but for the hard of hearing it does provide a guide. Even to have the occasional word confirmed on screen is massively helpful. It doesn't need to be entirely correct word for word to help me understand what's going on.

I’m still catching up on all this but have they covered what happens if a persons appears NOT to be ‘living in their acquired gender’ ie. a ‘transman’ gets pregnant - the most womanly thing it is possible to do?

Or detransitioners like Keira Bell who are now stuck with a male birth cert?

I expect that is why the NHS must say that "people" get pregnant not "women". So that you can still be a "pregnant person" and identify as a man. Otherwise the legal fiction (that you are living as a man and not as a woman) would fall apart.

But the only way they can have a female birth certificate is if they have a GRC.

Bint I guess as long as you, the service provider, don't say the quiet part out loud, it's not you who has disclosed anything. They've chosen to take a job where others might call this into question and you have abided by the relevant law, which has quite serious consequences for not doing so. IANAL though.

The rule was created for the largely-fictional scenario of "a woman who's really a man, but that's a secret". So the GRC revelation was supposed to then cause the revelation "this 'woman' is really male".

In practice, the more common scenario is "a someone who's visibly male, but is saying they're a woman". In which case the GRC revelation isn't revealing anything beyond "this man has done his paperwork"- the rules about it are nonsensical.

But the only way they can have a female birth certificate is if they have a GRC.
So if I reveal they have a female birth certificate, I also reveal they have a GRC. Which I legally can't do.

I think the legal position would be though that clearly-visibly male person you've admitted doesn't necessarily have a GRC. Maybe he really is a woman, and that's why he has the female birth certificate.

People might deduce that "male with female birth certificate" has a GRC, but the law works on the basis that you "can't tell". So you haven't actually revealed that he has a GRC - you've revealed that he's "female or has a GRC". If people decide he's not female, that's on them, not you.

Regarding the issue of passports, driving licences etc with wrong-sex markers, does this not originate in informal ad-hoc practices pre-dating the GRA for the small number of post-op 'old school' transsexuals in order to protect their privacy? I don't know this for a fact but I seem to remember Helen Joyce mentioning it at some point.

I’m still catching up on all this but have they covered what happens if a persons appears NOT to be ‘living in their acquired gender’ ie. a ‘transman’ gets pregnant - the most womanly thing it is possible to do?

There was a Reddit question on the HR subreddit a few months ago about this very subject. I'll try to find it.

Regarding the issue of passports, driving licences etc with wrong-sex markers, does this not originate in informal ad-hoc practices pre-dating the GRA for the small number of post-op 'old school' transsexuals in order to protect their privacy?

Yes. But then that got locked into the logic loop of what "living as a woman" means as the GRC requirement. Changing those things ended up being some of the best things someone could think of for the definition - the GRA rules assumed that you could already do those things without the GRC, despite it not making any sense as an entire system.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude echoes my thoughts. It is further proof that Stonewall training, as highlighted in the Essex University report by Akua Reindorf KC, “was providing unlawful advice on transgender rights”.

It should be easier to challenge from now on.

Yes, and maybe some strategic litigation.

Wasn't the SG argument that the question of how one 'lives as a woman' was irrelevant?

This is from HM passports:

[sorry, from the Home Office to advise HM Passport office. Dated April 2024]

'Crossdressers

We can only issue a passport if it is established the customer is using their new
identity for all purposes. You, the examiner, must not issue a passport in a name or gender a customer uses for some but not all purposes.
If the customer cannot provide medical evidence, they must make a statement
confirming they permanently use the preferred identity. They must also have a
referee confirm their new identity and send us evidence if they have changed their name (see Names – evidence to change a name).
You must scan the customers signed statement that confirms they use the preferred identity on the application (see gender recognition: scanning supporting documents).'

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/974817/GenderrecognitionV8.pdf

Also:

'Young adult exception: no contact with one or both parents
...
If there are no safeguarding concerns and the customer is not in contact with either of their parents, you must:

1. Tell the young adult that if we issue a passport in the new gender without

consent, or a court order allowing the change, their parents can:
o object to the issue of the passport
o ask for a passport to be issued in the previous gender

1. Deal with their application and issue their passport in their new gender, in line

with current guidance.'

...
'The young adult (16 to 17 years old) is in contact with their parent(s), or person(s) with parental responsibility, but cannot get consent. For example, their parents will only give their verbal consent. You must:

1. Check the contact information for the young adult is correct.
2. Call the young adult to:

o discuss their circumstances
o ask them to send you a statement that explains their circumstances
o tell them, if we issue a passport in the new gender without consent or a court
order allowing the change, their parents can object to the issue of the
passport or ask for a passport to be issued in the previous gender'

So 16 or 17 year olds can just provide a statement, on my reading?

Sorry, Chaz
I need to rewrite, may come back.
But essentially as I see it, the problem is misinformation about what the rights of MCWs with GRCs are.

The farce was in changing sex on documents.

You can't change sex.

If this means its difficult to travel to certain parts of the world, having the documentation that says one thing and then going through airport security, isn't going to really maintain that legal fiction now is it?

You probably are best advised simply to not go to that part of the world...

They should freeze all future alterations to documents. Documents should be a statement of reality not fantasy.

I also hold similar views over birth certificates, with the possibility to add an additional legal parent name.

That was skipped rapidly over in a sentence about things they'd unfortunately run out of time for.

This morning, I conducted an informal interview with one of my best staff because they had tripped a marker on the Bradford factor report. At the meeting, they told me for the first time, after five years of working for me, that they were FtM transgender (I had known for a long while but never confirmed it as it's private) and that they were four months pregnant.
The absences are morning sickness related and for hospital appointments. He and his partner don't want to tell anyone that he is pregnant and his partner will take 'maternity' leave with him taking two weeks 'paternity' leave.
I know the language is all messed up and so are all my policies on Mat/Pat leave and absence factors.
I have two problems: he works alone on a food truck half of the day, joined by a staff member who does know about this at lunchtime and for clear up. He doesn't want anyone to know he's pregnant. Unfortunately, he's starting to show and for a while, it can be a 'beer belly' but it's going to be obvious soon.

www.reddit.com/r/HumanResourcesUK/s/kbpoqUHZvw

He doesn't want anyone to know he's pregnant. Unfortunately, he's starting to show and for a while, it can be a 'beer belly' but it's going to be obvious soon.

Oh my goodness. This can't be real?

Seriously insane.

I bet every single person knows this person is "secretly" female.

One though for you wise wise women!

If the SC defined 'woman' as a biological woman = adult female.

Where does that leave schools and girls and transboys?

Could this have international implications?
Where does it leave people with a GRC from other countries who have arrived in the UK.

What a fine mess they have made, letting the tail wag the dog.

Ah but if they have a female birth certificate, you and everyone else has to disbelieve their lying eyes. Their is no such thing as a "visibly male" person - and if you think there is then your eyes are transphobic.

So you are not revealing their GRC status, because all our eyes now tell us they are women.
The law and birth certificate changes what our eyes and brains are telling us.

I think that is how it is supposed to work...

I believe it was: 'iIt's not defined in statute, I believe there is some guidance, which I don't have to hand and anyway my argument doesn't rest on it so let's move on oh look a squirrel.'