For Women Scotland in Supreme Court - thread 3

[nauticant]

The proceedings in the Supreme Court took place on 26 and 27 November 2024.

Previous threads discussing the proceedings:

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

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5218934-for-women-scotland-in-supreme-court-thread-2

The video of the proceedings over 2 days in 4 sessions can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.html

Thank you for this new thread, @nauticant

Thanks for thread, place marking again.

Thanks. I'm still trying to process it all.

Other thread running at the moment on AIBU:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/5218098-to-think-that-this-week-as-court-decides-what-the-legal-definition-of-a-woman-is-that-the-scottish-government-and-others-arent-fit-for-purpose

Thanks OP.

And another on FWR specifically focusing on implications for lesbians:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5219369-5219369-for-women-scotland-in-the-supreme-court-lesbians

Oh, they're entirely fit for their real purpose.

Thanks for starting thread 3. There’s so much to unpack from yesterday. Great to have the links to the videos too.

What struck me is that it was stated that abortion laws do not apply to a female with a GRC as male.

How do we apply voyeurism laws meant to protect women & children if suddenly males can be in our spaces?

You can't. Voyeurism and indecent exposure become meaningless if any man can do it legitimately.

I sincerely hope that is a question that will come up.

I’ve been thinking more about the no GRC=natal sex point.

This may kill off provision for “women and anyone who identifies as a woman” as it will be sex discrimination against men.

If “anyone who identifies as a woman” includes people without a GRC then it includes people who are legally and biologically male. Consequently, it is outside of the Single Sex protections in the EA.

What is the legal basis for including women plus a subset of men but excluding the rest of men?

It maybe that female sex plus GRC holders would work (depending on the SC judgement) but female sex plus male sex without GRC doesn’t because males are only eligible if they meet extra criteria. I am eligible as a woman although I don’t have a gender identity belief but a male would only be eligible if they do have a gender identity belief.

(It’s like trying to think your way through a ball of string that’s been attacked by cats.)

I've just been catching up all morning! All video recordings are now on the SC website btw (for both days), although I've only dipped in and out.

Great threads with some good points made. Seeing the tumbleweeds when the judge asked 'but surely the criteria for being issued a GRC can't be just 'wanting one'!?' silence... Ben's diplomatic answer...

I was actually quite astounded at how little they seemed to know at the start (and how much they assumed it applied only to Hayley Cropper types) but I did see a few pertinent questions on the second day. Can anyone direct me to where they ask about living as a woman?

I did wonder if all the stuff about 'pregnancy/mat PC only applies to 'pregnant women' ' could be avoided by the EQA just changing its wording to 'pregnant people'? Wouldn't anyone looking for an easy resolution do that as surely there would be arguments that it's not contentious, it's inclusive etc, and therefore wouldn't conflict with the GRA 'sex for all purposes'?

Proudly place marking. We are all indebted to For Women Scotland ❤️

If “anyone who identifies as a woman” includes people without a GRC then it includes people who are legally and biologically male. Consequently, it is outside of the Single Sex protections in the EA.

I think it has always been known but not challenged legally at a level higher than the lowest one.

Just popping in to thank everybody for all the comments and analysis on these threads. I've not been able to watch proceedings so have been reading the threads in snatches.

I must admit I was rather surprised that ScotGov went right ahead and committed Literal Gendercide

Thanks for posting the links, I didn't have time last couple of days to make head nor tail of proceedings. Will try and make sense of it.
Anyone got as far as some kind of simplified summary yet?
Are we winning? 🙄

I did wonder if all the stuff about 'pregnancy/mat PC only applies to 'pregnant women' ' could be avoided by the EQA just changing its wording to 'pregnant people'? Wouldn't anyone looking for an easy resolution do that as surely there would be arguments that it's not contentious, it's inclusive etc, and therefore wouldn't conflict with the GRA 'sex for all purposes'?

It can, but that would involve changing the legislation which would invite scrutiny on all the other bits which don't make sense, and putting pressure to improve it so it does.

Replying to @WomensSports who asked this on the previous thread

I remember watching that storyline many years ago and I don't remember anything much political about it (although I was maybe 12 so my political awareness was minus several politikks). Have you got examples of how it wasn't coincidental? I'm not trying to sealion, it's just it came across as a fairly inert storyline at the time and like they just wanted a big reveal for ratings that month.

I don't have any proof it wasn't coincidental but I remember a few years ago someone linking to interviews with the show runner and head writer (who I think was a gay man) about them using social and cultural topics in the show. Soaps have always done this to an extent and back in the 90s a show like Corrie had massive reach.

Knowing what I know now about the backroom lobbying that was going on during that period especially post 1997 when New Labour came to power it just fits with the overall pattern.

Many MPs in that time period will have sat down to watch Coronation Street a few times a week with the rest of the nation and come to the conclusion that 'Hayley' was who they were protecting with this absurd legislation.

@WomensSports

re: your Hayley Cropper character, it was deffo propaganda, the TRAs have admitted it.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/hollyoaks-annie-wallace-consulted-iconic-25468632

(Will find some more links)

Yes that is the logical conclusion. And it's where we've been heading. Pregnant people, birthing people, etc.

but if you're going to start describing people by their body parts and biological function, then men who identify as women will be called person with a penis, ejaculator. Not something I think they want, at all.

2011 published article on Hayley Cropper (actually written in 2005 by Christine Burns of Press for Change):

https://lgbtplushistorymonth.co.uk/2011/03/hayley-cropper/

And @ChaChaChooey
Bloody hell that's disturbing. Puts it all in a totally different light.

“It was when she came back in in Amsterdam, then they asked me through my friend Christine who was with Pressed for Change, ‘Would you like to help because you’re quite keen on this storyline’.”

Ahh.

Just placemarking, but may as well take the opportunity to re post tribunal tweets artists sketch of Ben.