For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

She's basically saying "our genderist category is superior". It's predicated on the belief that a woman identifying as a man is less of a woman than a man identifying as a woman.

I missed the last thread because I've been really busy the last week.

Going to try to keep a pace of this one though. Fascinating that a legal fiction has made this necessary for a court of law to decide.

Watching with interest. I do not believe that the GRC was intended to replace legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, I think it's an unintended consequence otherwise there would be no need of a pc of gender as well as sex.

My view is that the GRA should be repealed. It's nonsense and the thing it was implemented for is now a non issue due to the 2013 marriage act.

Yes. Surely it is common sense that pregnant transmen, for example, should be protected

Isn't the point of a GRC that you 'become' your chosen sex as well as gender, so women who ID as men become men, in the eyes of the law, and therefore can't be discriminated against as females.
I think. But I haven't had my lunch yet..

I think that was the repealing of section 29 (whatever section 29 was) - something marriage related.

If at the end of all this the judges still cannot clearly articulate, or even understand, matters in a way that makes sense to all......then the law either needs to be amended or repealed

Thank you NoBinturongsHereMate

Also, what's the material difference between a woman with a piece of paper who identifies as a man and one without?

The phrase "sex of acquired gender" really is bonkers

A fiver?

She's arguing that someone with a GRC can effectively get around the law in any way they see fit.

"Becoming the sex of the aquired gender"... I still have not idea what this means. Does anyone else understand?

Yes "identify" is the correct term. It's not possible to change sex!

I don't like her one bit.

yes, Judge has got it! No need to allow people to literally change sex in order to have them be protected, they already are.

Thanks for the new thread. And to everyone providing links - and their wisdom.

It's an attempt to conflate sex with gender, which is what the whole ideology rests on.

I think it must be the acquisition of the certificate (GRC) that gives you the status of the 'sex' of the gender you identify into.

Is our barrister trying to show that all the issues we've had with GRA are actually the TRA's over stepping the mark, therefore the law is not an ass..

That was a bit transphobic! If you don't have a GRC you haven't changed sex...

The judges seem to be on the ball today. They are making the lawyers very uncomfortable

Yes, that's how a barrister who works in this area described it. It means women who object to males (with GRCs) in their spaces could be prosecuted under sex discrimination against a woman. This is why its so important to clarify that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Someone, I think from the E&HRC, was on the radio yesterday and said that their position is that this needs to be clarified by Parliament rather than in the Courts.

My head hurts!

Hopefully this will reinforce the problems with this law.

Seen on a t-shirt:
'The law is an ass, and its pronouns are he/haw'