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.

Oh how reassuring

Could the 40 lesbians meeting on Thursday night in such a scenario claim to be men on Thursday’s so they are not being discriminatory in excluding the man lesbian?

@Justme56 As determined in the Forstarter case the GC belief was determined to be a protected belief under the Equality Act, and as such is deemed to be a protected belief since the Equality Act came into force, as a common law principle. I do believe.

Therefore whilst it was not specifically recognised at the time, it is now and so can be referred to in this case.

“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.”

I’m glad you’ve raised this point. I’ve been puzzled about where this “you can’t ask” has come from and how it has gained such currency. It’s an offence to disclose someone’s GRC status if that information was acquired whilst acting in an official capacity. But I’m not aware of asking about a GRC being an offence in any legislation.

The argument that you can’t ask them because you’d be “outing” them as a transwoman is nonsense - it’s not the GRC / lack of GRC that “outs” them, it’s being visibly male that outs them.

But if you can ask to see a GRC for purposes of deciding admission, but can’t tell the other people running the event/security “yes/no, this person can/can’t come in” (because that is de facto disclosure to a third party) what use is that?

It's not lesbian-specific. The Equality Act defines any membership group of 25 or more people to be an 'association' and to be subject to all provisions of the Act.

Re the GRC, there is indeed nothing in legislation that prevents people asking. But there is also nothing to make someone comply with the request. And in the Supreme Court case (day 1 morning, I think) they did say the guidance to one of the acts in question does say it's a question that should not be asked even if the Act doesn't say it must not. From memory I think that may have been specifically Scottish guidance.

Re pregnant GRC transmen and abortion, it's not that they aren't allowed access to abortion - it's that they are not limited by the restrictions of the Abortion Act. They could legally have an abortion by any means, for any reason, and at any point of pregnancy, without breaking a law - because there's no law against men having abortions.

The abortion thing alone means they need to go back to the sane, old fashioned, what is a woman - adult female.
Sex change just isn't possible. And body altering surgery is purely cosmetic

I'm interested to know that according to Michael Foran there's no prescription against asking for it. Back in 2007 or around that time we had our first man turning up saying he was a woman and a lesbian and he demanded his right as a woman to attend a women's event. We asked him whether he had a GRC and he said we had no right to ask that, it was illegal for us to request it. In subsequent talks with the police, to quite a high level, none of them contradicted that. One more senior officer, off the record, warned us that 'these people' would be difficult for us to deal with as we had no right to see or disclose any information and were expected to take them at their word. I've since heard several other men who identify as women say the same: no right to ask for or see a GRC. Clearly claiming this was a tactic. As for not disclosing the information to any third parties, as someone else said, if you let one man in and exclude another then it's clear who has the GRC — so we're dealing with that possibility by not allowing any of them in.

You have the right to ask, but not the right to be answered.

So same as an age check - you have the right to ask, but not the right to be answered, and you have the right to refuse serivce/admission in the absence of an answer?

@Pluvia I'm straight but I'll happily dig a couple of rows for you should it come to it.

On your point about gay men saying transmen are invading saunas etc wanting sex with gay men. If that is really becoming prevalent it may help peak more men, gay or not.

As an aside, I'm surprised as in my limited experience, most transmen I know or know of, are in relationships with other natal females (apart from the few where both parties identify as trans but are still in an essentially heterosexual relationship).

It's not just lesbian only associations that this relates to - will it not make it possible for lesbian women to march in Pride parades with signage that clearly identifies them as same sex attracted women without being harrased and forcibly stopped?
Also a reminder that lesbian women in Australia have not been free to associate apart from male people who identify as lesbians since 2007. These horrible legal precidents and legislation don't just melt away because they're so patently unjust. Women need to fight, and tonight I'm drinking once again to TERF Island.

You're a legend, Pluvia. Ovaries of steel. Good on you!!

www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/scottish-government-is-ignoring-womens-rights

"And so to the erasure of lesbians. One of four interventions in the case was granted to “the Lesbian interveners” – a group of three organisations representing the rights of lesbian women. Among their arguments was that the Scottish government’s view of the law denies lesbians the right be protected as a group defined by their sexual orientation – one of the nine characteristics listed in the Equality Act.
Crawford confirmed to the court that a lesbian association of 25 members or more would not be able to restrict membership to those who are born female. Natal males – in the language of the court, meaning those born male – with a GRC who were attracted to females could not be refused entry. The only way for these trans women to be excluded would be to regroup as an association which seeks to advance a protected philosophical belief: in this instance, the gender-critical belief that sex is immutable. Those inside the court building have reported “audible intakes of breath”. Under this scenario, lesbians were no longer lesbians but rather, as the academic Jo Phoenix put it, “gender-critical women attracted to other gender-critical women”: this was sexual orientation being replaced by “belief orientation”.
“This has a chilling effect on these kinds of organisations, doesn’t it?” Justice Ingrid Simler asked the Scottish government’s representative: a lesbian association would not only have to include natal males with GRCs, but also those who identified as women but who did not hold a GRC, because the law dictates that you cannot ask if someone has a GRC. “No, you cannot,” Crawford confirmed. This was grade-A catch-22 material. “If they simply want to associate as a group of lesbians… do you say that it doesn’t have a chilling effect?” Simler pressed again. “I say it doesn’t m’lady,” Crawford replied.
“It was just gobsmacking the way she dismissed our concerns, our legal rights, actually our existence,” Sally Wainwright, who helped write the Lesbian interveners’ case, told me. “She actually denied the existence of same-sex attraction as a protected characteristic. Their position is, in my opinion, really beyond the pale: lesbians don’t matter. If men can be lesbians, then what does same-sex attraction mean? It doesn’t mean anything.”
President of the Supreme Court, Robert Reed, appeared to speak for many when he said, “We have to try to give the Equality Act an interpretation that is workable in practice.” So as to make his point, he summed up the Scottish government’s position: a trans woman with a GRC who is attracted to women is a lesbian and can’t be excluded from a lesbian association; a trans woman without a GRC is to be “treated as a heterosexual man. That’s pretty stark.”

No words, just WTAF 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤬

For years the New Statesman has been TWAW so it's actually quite refreshing to read this.

On your point about gay men saying transmen are invading saunas etc wanting sex with gay men. If that is really becoming prevalent it may help peak more men, gay or not.

No idea how prevalent it is, but it happens enough for the gay men of my acquaintance (older, provincial) to want to talk about it with me. I have an older gay friend who came out late in life and has daughters in their 20s, and he was devastated to come across women of his daughter's age, their breasts removed and on T, at some sauna-type place he went to.

The wonderful Hannah Barnes may have brought them to their senses.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's obvious what the SG mean with their interpretation of the EA&GRA! 🤣

Should have credited @voidifremoved on X for the flowchart.

That's nuts 🤣

Really stupid question, re-GRC, could a female have one that confirms their gender as female 🤔.
That flowchart sort of assumes GRC means the gender no longer matches the sex?

Not a stupid question! Yes a GRC is for people changing their legal sex.

What would be the purpose of having a GRC that affirms the sex already recorded on our birth certificates? Where are you going with this? It's interesting...

No. You missed the memo. Only male heterosexuals are allowed to do that now.

Love that flowchart, MrsM.

I'm not sure where I'm going with it. Other than pointing out more madness.

But it's a Gender Recognition Cert, not a Sex Recognition Cert.
So it's sort of recognising Gender and Sex are different. And Google Sex vs Gender and it's recognised they are different, biological difference vs social concept.

Not sure what the purpose of a female having a female GRC other than to tick a box that says they have a Gender Identity.

And surely Sexual attraction is based on biology rather than Socal Concept.

All absolute madness. I hope the court comes back with a sensible answer.