For Women Scotland in Supreme court - thread 2

[ArabellaScott]

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

Quite!

but as GRC's are top secret squirrel documents how on earth is anyone supposed to know the difference between the men with a trans identity with a secret GRC and the men with a trans identity without a GRC?

What has happened is many organisations, including the govt, NHS, FA etc assume all men with a trans identity have a GRC and they are granted full rights accorded by the GRA. This is bad bad bad law.

Also I think only adults can have a GRC - so how are the FA etc extending full GRC rights to boys?

I was thinking the same. If Supreme Court judges are struggling with this mangled logic and language, how the hell are service providers expected to interpret their legal duties?

Don't know if this has been mentioned, by re earlier posts on the GRA/EA being about vertical relationship to the state (GRA) and horizontally to individuals/groups (EA).

The SG barrister said
"We submit that the GRA is not limited to the vertical relationship of the person to the state but has horizontal affects on society."

That's ruffled a few feathers among the Scottish women.

I thought the barrister was being very disingenous at one particular point. When Justice? Rose was wondering how women could have a comparator if they were disadvantaged in relation to men. As this wouldn’t effect men who identified as a woman, if they were perceived as their actual sex. If there was sex discrimination against women, and the man was seen/perceived to be his acruel sex, and so did not suffer from the same discrimination.

She was all ‘I’m not following you’ (paraphrase). Even I got the blasted point the Justice was making.

I suppose management (and now trade unions and government) would say ‘don’t listen to those stupid women. How can they say such a thing when this lovely woman John has done very well. John’s advancement shows how much we value ladies like John, and ladies like John are greatly encouraged and not discriminated against. Viva les femmes like John.’

Have any of the judges asked about which prison estate for the (god, trying to not mangle the language here) criminals who have a GRC in their acquired gender of female?

Can't get lost if you speak the truth .

It was a turd identifying as a stapler.

Thank you all for the running commentary. I've been listening, and the only bits I could make any sense of were the questions from the judges. I'm looking forward to all the 'after lunch' answers.

The petition has already been suspended.

I think a fair summary of this morning was that the two barristers insisted that the GRA had retrospective and forward effect, and then,

Crawford attempted to argue that TW were legally real women and should be covered under sex, judges got irritated about this since perception discrimination covers TW,

ergo if a TW is paid less than a male then the TW can complain this was because they were discriminated against on presumption of being a woman and would win a case.

Also neither could answered specific questions from judges that they should have anticipated (barristers are expected to)

Crawford skimmed over but mentioned that if TW were included in sex protection that trans men would be chucked out.

Judges getting more argumentative, stapler fails, judges huff of due to lack of in depth submissions, Crawford will have no lunch break.

Oh and neither addressed the obvious absurdities this would create, thus far

I dipped in and out around work as it seemed to be a rather dry discussion of the technicalities of the legislation. Only warmed up in the last 15 minutes or so when the judges started asking the implications of making it work in the real world. I think it’s clear from their questions that the judges understand the issues and points that Sex Matters et al are making, although of course they are not giving anything away on whether they agree or not.

As someone who has desperately been trying to work out what the hell is going on with SG’s “case” (such as it is, although perhaps it just identifies as coherent), hard liquor would be appreciated.

If the SG, as they should have by now, had a not laughable at totally convincing answer to 'living as a woman' they'd have used it straight off the bat the first time it was raised today.

Obviously they haven't got a not laughable at totally convincing answer so what the hell l do they think is going to happen in the sixty minutes that is lunch to be able to coherently answer the question after lunch?

I don't want to jinx it but it sounds like it's going extremely well so far.

Not able to follow earlier but as always commentary here has really helped, and given me a laugh .thank you all

I'm just trying to catch up as I was working this morning. Would someone please clarify. I'm seeing lots of comments about the judges arguing. Is this arguing amongst themselves or between the judges and counsel for SG?

I’m trying not to think about this case. It is so scary if we lose. So scary.

I think they are going to refer to previous court cases in which TW have initiated proceedings for some type of discrimination or other.

Everything seems to rest on which side has the best lawyers.....and up until recently the TRAS had it all sewn up - with people like RMW doing legal training in order to pursue trans rights, for example.

So if the protected characteristics are not based in reality but self-perceived characteristics:
I perceive myself as being disabled (after all it’s self-perception that matters) so I am going to claim any benefits/allocations as my perception of my protected characteristic overrides everything else, and if that reduces the equity of resources for the actual real disabled that’s tough on them. I am also going to apply for a blue badge and not show it because it’s secret. And if any one has a go if I am in the wrong place say they are at fault just because. I know I am living as a disabled person as it is my perception - there should be no burden of proof for me.

I think that’s what she was saying but with women instead of disabled and GRC instead of a blue badge.

Appeared to me that it was the judges vs. counsel

Not arguing. Just debating the points of law and attempting (like the rest of us) to work out wtf is going on.

It is not so much that they have been arguing, but that they have been challenging the barristers for clarity; and also interjecting with further attempts to gain clarity on what is essentially a right royal mess.

This is a good point. SG is still stuck in the semantics and dry theoretical debate on legal principles. FWS, Sex Matters & the lesbian coalition are talking about the real world consequences and impacts. It’s bizarre. SG has already hit the cold hard reality of prisons with Isla Bryson and had to row back on its trans inclusion prisons policy but are pretending we’re in fantasy land where none of this is causing problems in the real world. Like someone else said upthread, disingenuous bullshit.

The judges have put both barristers feet to the fire and appeared un convinced by the barristers submissions, especially around TW being real women who should be covered by sex protection.