For Women Scotland in the Supreme Court: LESBIANS

[GCinHE]

Well I am hacked off.

SG was asked about the impact of Transwomen (TWs) on lesbian associations. After much prevarication, and an extended lunch break, the best they could offer was (wait for it, you'll laugh):

Lesbian associations of more than 25 people must accept TWs who hold GRCs if they say they are lesbians.

But lesbian associations can't ask to see GRCs.

TWs who do not hold GRCs but identify as lesbians are deemed heterosexual males under current UK Law (as it should be imo).

But lesbian associations can't ask to see GRCs.

So the judges asked the SG, what are lesbian associations supposed to do if we/they can't ask whether or not an applicant holds a GRC and thereby to determine if the applicant is legally female (a section 9 woman) or instead legally a heterosexual male?

The SG suggested we can't ask for GRCs (because menz feelings will be hurt/indirect discrimination) but we CAN ask to see birth certificates which will say Female for both natal females who do not have GRCs stating their legal sex is male, and will say Female for natal males who have legal (Section 9) sex of female.

In pragmatic terms, we will therefore have to ask all applicants to see their birth certificates so that membership policies do not indirectly discriminate against natal males. Never mind that not everybody has a birth certificate to hand.

Here's the laughable bit:

To legitimately keep TWs out of lesbian associations, the SG proposes that if the lesbian reconstituted as both a lesbian association and an association that is for lesbians holding the protected characteristic of a philosophical belief in gender critical belief I.e. that sex is immutable, then we could theoretically keep TWs with GRCs out.

What the SG did not explain is why lesbians would want any GRC-holding man 'lesbians' in our associations; why the Protected Characteristic of Philosophical Belief is now required to prop up the Protected Characteristic of Sexual Orientation (apparently some PCs under the EqA now have greater status than other PCs); and what we should do if a TW with a GRC says they are a lesbian and that they also hold a Philosophical Belief that sex is real and immutable. Which smh of course they will say that* because they will have a legal sex as female and why wouldn't they just say that?

How will lesbians be able to counter that? Say 'oh we don't believe you', or 'TWs can't legally hold a belief that sex is immutable'??

The Scottish Government has a lot to answer for and their barristers neither understood what they were arguing for, nor were able to logically articulate it, but they were nonetheless quite au fait with throwing lesbians under the bus.

This appeal had better succeed otherwise both the GRA and the EqA will be completely unworkable, and meanwhile lesbian lives and women's single-sex spaces will be over-run with autogynephiles, pornsick incels, male supremacists, mentally ill males, garden variety sexual predators, misogynists all with the power to define what lesbians are, unlike actual lesbians.

I am so aggravated.

BINGO! And like I said above - they will ALL just say that. Because of course they will! Meanwhile, Sexual Orientation would be all but wiped from the EqA for lesbians unless theoretically propped up with a nebulous Protected Characteristic of Philosophical Belief - thereby making a 'belief' more important than a material reality of personhood. But as shown - this is in reality completely unworkable because TWs with GRCs will just say they are gender critical.

Judges are humans so i think it highly likely that they will, have spent the evening musing over the implications of the SC position,

So here is a potential discussion they might have

Hypothetical situation,

say 35 lesbians have a gathering, and refuse to admit a lesbi-male because he will not show you his birth certificate the group refuses to admit him. He then brings a claim for discrimination, in the hearing, the leader of the lesbian group says in evidence that only twenty four people were lesbians, the others were not sure if they were or not, so are heterosexuals.

Or he calls the police who arrive to inspect the gathering, for a potential hate crime

Same rational is provided to the police.

All nonsense of course.

Aidan offered them a straight forward argument, that the sex protections in the EQA resolves most of the difficulties.

I cannot see how the judges can go any other way.

Yes that was nuts! So you are legally obliged to follow the abortion laws if you are a female...unless you are pregnant and are a transman with a GRC. Then you can just ignore the law on abortion.

Could we please stay in touch? I have skin in this game...

@Bannedontherun let's hope sanity prevails!

If a penis can be a female penis, any body inhabited by someone with a birth certificate saying they are female is female bodied, surely.

And that brings you back to Isla Bryson in is pink leggings, remember him, who they eventually agreed shouldn't be housed in a women's prison.

I'm just so deflated by the prohibition of FUN in all this - the mindless fun of getting dressed up and going out and being amongst like-minded women - sure there were always traumas and dramas and differences of opinion amongst lesbians but when Whigfield started singing
Saturday night, I feel the air is getting hot
Like you, baby
it was fuck politics, let's dance
Spontaneity? Not allowed any more it seems.

What about lesbians who believe TWAW so is not gender critical, but want to be with lesbians who are not men? Do they get excluded too?

The woman with a GRC who is not subject to abortion law, how does she get an abortion? And similarly, does the same woman, forced to carry the baby to term, not have the defence of infanticide if she kills her baby because of too much testosterone or anger because she's been forced to have the baby? The Infanticide Act was passed in 1938, when Parliament definitely knew what a woman was.

It's ridiculous. The SG are not serious people.

Ah but he was rapistgender according to Sturgeon. Completely different. For reasons.

TWAW handmaiden-type lesbians are already self-excluding from the events I run because I'm a transphobic nazi bigot, so I don't see that as much of a problem on a local level, where people will have a good idea of each others' stance on this issue. It's been standard practice for years in my lesbian neck of the woods for women to contact the organisers before deciding to attend an event if it matters to them whether transbians or men who identify as women will be included. Some of them message hoping to be assured that men will be included, others that they won't. There are women and lesbians who won't attend women-only events because they're exclusionary.

Your point about transmen not having access to abortion is interesting. I hear from gay men that a fair few have invaded gay clubs and saunas, looking for sex with gay men. That includes vaginal sex, so the chances of pregnancy are probably quite significant.

GCinHE, yes, if you want to message me then feel free. We're fortunate enough to be older, self-employed and battle-hardened to the point where nothing threatens us any more. More difficult for younger women.

Ever since the first man who said he was a woman demanded his right as a woman to attend a lesbian event we've been threatened with legal action. I've lost count of the number of TRAs who've said they'll sue me/ report me for hate crimes or whatever. None of them have ever done. I feel untouchable.

Somebody tell Riley J “your genital preferences are transphobic” Dennis.

Frankly boiling with rage over this.

Interesting.

At the LGB Alliance Conference this year I managed to get a word with Dr Michael Foran & asked if it was really true as often claimed that nobody can lawfully ask someone if they have a GRC.

I was interested about it because I’d recently attended a Police & Crime Commissioner meeting where the Chief Constable for Norfolk claimed nobody - not even the duty sergeant booking arrestees into the police cells - could lawfully ask.

He said that there is nothing in the law as written which prohibits asking. (It is unlawful to disclose the answer to any third parties).

Given the salience of a GRC & the privileges it confers, especially after the Haldane judgement, it would truly be bizarre if nobody was allowed to ask about it.

Anyway: if it comes to a test case I’ll certainly Dig for Britain to support you!

I wonder if it would be possible to set up a GC lesbian group, where the terms and conditions include agreeing that it is inappropriate for anyone male bodied at birth to attend? That would set out the understanding of GC being used, and would require any GC male-bodied individual to self-exclude, wouldn't it? And if every potential member was required to complete the same form, it would be more difficult to argue discrimination.

I believe the issue is that if you act on the information in the GRC (for example including one TW and excluding another) you have effectively disclosed that the first TW has a GRC and the second does not.

If you can't legally exclude the TW who has the GRC but you can't legally disclose you are including them because they have a GRC, you end up having to treat all TW as if they have GRC.

That's what I understand anyway.

(Not that I agree with any of this BTW. GRCs should not exist. They do not make a man into a woman, they are simply a legally mandated demand to pretend that man is a woman. The rights of women are a reaction to society's treatment of the female body and the GRC legal fiction does not change the physical reality of a TWs male body. It does not mean a TW suddenly has the needs that come with a female body. There is no connection between the legal fiction and the physical state it falsifies.)

The Scottish gov't should be ashamed of themselves. This issue gives me such rage I don't even have enough words for all the ranting I want to do on it.

I’m a lesbian. TW have decimated the scene in London. There’s a vocal army of women who facilitate them shutting down nights and try to ‘catch’ GC women out eg there are regular ‘purges’ of meet ups, some times by the organiser, some times by attendees of GC women.

it’s not a joke when people refer to being a thought criminal. I’ve seen WhatsApp screenshots of TRAs lambasting whole groups of women in the lesbian community for not doing enough, being vocal enough. It’s really nasty. I avoid all the mainstream socials. A friend and I realised about 6 months ago that there are carefully distributed ‘plants’ in socials / WhatsApp groups. They join and the first thing they say is ‘is this a terf free zone?’. In some ways it’s entirely predictable. The lesbian community save the odd good egg has always been self sabotaging and pretty awful to each other, although in all honesty I never ever thought they’d capitulate to men. That was after all what defined them as lesbian 😂

at this point all you can do is laugh. I source out new GC friends very carefully but they are out there. It’s insane that many of us are GC but the mob rules currently.

in some ways I can’t mourn the loss of any community that self implodes and excommunicates its own - if you are that stupid and group sacrificial something will get you sooner or later.

An interesting angle that could be explored if push comes to shove. If GC lesbians start identifying as 'homosexual females', might they be able to claim harassment if a 'sudofemale' turns up for one of their events.

There are several that I know about, and I'm really only in touch with people in my region. We're all working underground. People have to hear about us and find someone involved who'll vouch for them. That said, we've certainly had lesbians who've sworn blind they're GC turn up to events and then get upset because they can't bring their trans friends. What one person thinks is GC is not necessarily what others think of as GC. One would have to have an hour long face to face interview, followed by a short written exam, in order to ensure that women could be trusted.

A PP lamented the loss of fun, and I echo that big-time. We used to hold four big events a year with 300-400 women most times. We didn't have to have security meetings to deal with demos outside, we didn't have to rehearse evacuation plans in case someone set of smoke bombs or crickets, we just got together with a load of other women and danced and had fun.

That's so awful. When I was a younger lesbian the scene in London was thriving - cafes, bars, clubs on most days of the week. I feel so sorry for younger women unable to enjoy the freedom of lesbian only gatherings.
I watched in horror at the assorted gaggle of misogynists, homophobes and convicts trying to shut down the inaugural meeting of the Lesbian Project. It just symbolised the entrenched woman hatred and arrogance of these men and their foolish hangers on:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4772051-film-of-protest-outside-the-lesbian-project-meeting

The big issue is that young lesbians have very few women-only, lesbian-only events or places they can go to. And because it's mainly (IME) older lesbians, with our grey hair and second wave feminist expectations, a lot of younger women aren't particularly interested in hanging out with us.

I've admitted elsewhere that there's a part of my brain that is hardwired to think in pop songs🙄, and your post, MrsOvertonsWindow, immediately called up:

Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way

I googled the lyrics to check I had them right, and it's actually relevant right down to the last verse:

Through the door there came familiar laughter
I saw your face and heard you call my name
Oh, my friend we're older, but no wiser
For in our hearts the dreams are still the same.

<sniff> I think there's something in my eye <sniff>😢

Does anyone know why one can't ask about a GRC? Seems odd that a club could require your birth certificate to join but isn't allowed to request to see a GRC.

If there is one (of many) things that I didn’t understand about yesterday, it was the SG suggestion about using GC beliefs as a get out clause for excluding TW from Lesbian groups. Their whole argument was that when the EA10 was written certified sex meant sex. At the time however there was no such thing as GC beliefs in law and no way they would have ever known that there would be. This infers either they meant biological sex or as the judge commented (re chilling effect) they didn’t give a toss about the impact on actual women.

Sorry I know you have all covered how unworkable this is anyway, it just bugged me that their argument was based on this.