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

Because the arguments always come from the starting point/assumption of a good faith man.

Never from the starting point of a vulnerable woman - although you can see the gears screeeching as the courts are forced to retrofit that pov into the argument- and never from the starting point of a bad faith person.

I am really worried about this case. If FWS win, then great, but if they lose, is it going to make things worse than they are now? It will have been clarified in law that sex means certified sex, incentivising more men to get GRCs and emboldening activists to make even more demands. As one of the judges said, the effects on lesbian associations would be chilling 🙁

Or is all this necessary to bring things to a head? Maybe it will put the brakes on simplifying the process of getting a GRC because the potential harmful consequences will be clearer?

I don't think they are daft. But I also don't think they've had the time, or maybe motivation, to get as involved in the weeds of this as many women.

A lawyer on here once said that laws are often deliberately made to sound a bit woolly, in order to be open to interpretation. Being a bit fluid can often be an aid in judgements.

The issue with that, in this specific instance, is that any and all woolliness will immediately be exploited in favour of men.

After all, one would have thought that a law specifically designed to protect women by addressing sexism and protect homosexuals, by addressing homophobia, could maintain its definition of sex and homosexuality. But noo.

This has to be iron tight, air tight, waterproof, bulletproof, nailed down law, protected by armed guards with psychopathic tendencies.

i'm just not sure that everyone, certainly in the legal profession, gets that.

Or is all this necessary to bring things to a head?

that's what I believe to be the plan

It's the only viable plan I think.

There was a PP upthread who mentioned that laws do get changed whenever society recognises that they don't reflect the values of the majority of society any more. It feels like we're almost at that tipping point, or will be within a year.

Step 1 is to ringfence the bad law. Thank you Ruth Crawford for pointing out that biological males without GRCs who are attracted to women are simply heterosexual men 🙏

Once the nonsense of self-ID is gone, the utter absurdity of the GRA will be there for all to see. I really hope Isla applies for a GRC and keeps seeking press attention like this:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/trans-rapist-isla-bryson-launches-34023503

It's already been posted upthread but it's worth looking at the NHS' definition of gender dysphoria when thinking about Isla (and the many other Islas out there.. see Reduxx news or the weekly Glinner Substack)... it's a low threshold to meet the criteria for diagnosis:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

Once the nonsense of self-ID is gone, the utter absurdity of the GRA will be there for all to see. I really hope Isla applies for a GRC

All the pedophiles in the land will be getting one. Predators may well take massive delight in being completely open about it. Or suing if they aren't granted one.

I can see the headlines. Roll up, roll up, get your genuine, authentic lady tickets here, only five pand

Yup.

When I was on an LGBT workshop online at work, I was reading the comments from a couple of TW who were interacting with each other about how neither had bothered getting a GRC as it was pointless. It was all positioned as unnecessarily degrading etc and they already had their driving licences and passports. They were getting lots of support in the chat. For context, their previous posts were clear indications that their aeroplane route was via Spain.

I still feel a huge empathy for the smaller number of TW who represent the "other side" of this i.e. the ones who clearly aren't flying in from Málaga Airport. However, I don't want their belief in gender identity enforced on me as fact either. I would like them to have access to good healthcare where their distress is unpicked neutrally and addressed in a way that isn't just an affirmation pathway.

I suspect that the posters on that chat will be representative of the ones who suddenly realise that they can handle the indignity of the GRC process after all. They will continue to fly the flag for public sympathy while applying for one. Those in the general population who have already been hiding their nefarious intentions in a very thinly veiled way already will up the ante. There's no point in hiding in plain sight unless it's plain enough because that's obviously half the "fun".

(I'm hoping this post is within MNHQ guidelines 🤞).

I felt that in the court case that much of the discussion was about the impact on a few trans people, and less was about the impact on many women. And a lot of time was spent on the intentions of the GRA and far less on the intentions of the EA - because the EA failed to deal with Section 9 of the GRA unambiguously. Look at the two sides - FWS, Sex Matters and Scottish Lesbians focussed on the EA; SM, Amnesty and the Human Rights chappie focussed on the GRA.

"Once the nonsense of self-ID is gone, the utter absurdity of the GRA will be there for all to see. I really hope Isla applies for a GRC and keeps seeking press attention like this:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/trans-rapist-isla-bryson-launches-34023503

Kudos to the Daily Record journalist who managed to report on two trans-identified men without using any pronouns (except in the quote from the ERCC judgment). It can be done if you try.

Given that the panel will not report back or make a decison until next Spring, it has to be assumed, or maybe even hoped, that Labour will wait until after that time before embarking on their intended 'modernisation'.

That's a good point.

Although I guess the closing speech put the focus squarely back on the importance of rights that are associated with sex (the biological kind).

Perhaps the written submission from Sex Matters and others on the "GC" side made so much sense regarding the EA that there was little to pick apart through questions. Whereas by contrast the SG lawyers were making very little sense, even after lunch. Hence the scrutiny about what the GRA was actually trying to achieve in the first place.

I suspect not.

I bet there will be lots of pressure to start it now.

It's always in the back of my mind to wonder what Iain Anderson is up to within the Labour ranks.

He's now heavily involved in advising them on strategies that impact businesses. Business obviously include those that provide services to the public.

I wouldn't be surprised if he urges Labour to "tidy this up" quickly so that, if it is found that only TW with a GRC are women, businesses are already in a position of "clarity" where they can keep letting this "marginalised minority" retain the dignity of using the "right" facilities in work, sports and services.

The whole bloody point of the law is that there are bad actors.

If everyone could be assumed correctly to have pure motives all the time we wouldn't needs laws against theft, murder, fraud etc. We could save such a lot of taxpayers money and put it into hospitals and schools.

It's Lang's sacred caste all over again. But shored up by lawyers who are intelligent enough and surely have encountered enough criminals to know better.

You only have to look at the death and rape threats on social media to JKR and other vocally GC women to see the type of people who might want a grc. And that's the bits they're willing to put publicly on display.

Good for FWS for pushing it all the way but it's frightening because for most of human history women have not had human rights and still don't in many countries. So it absolutely is possible for the rights we have to be taken away. I suppose at least this way it won't be by stealth 😞

Perhaps the written submission from Sex Matters and others on the "GC" side made so much sense regarding the EA that there was little to pick apart through questions. Whereas by contrast the SG lawyers were making very little sense, even after lunch.

There IS no sense to be made of it. As we are now at the stage of addressing what the law actually allows, it falls down. They can't hide behind, well it's the law. We're now saying yeah but what does that actually mean.

And we all know the only argument to uphold it is be kind.

The judges have successfully identified that there is fuck all criteria needed to get a GRC.

The rest should be self evident.

Great post, I shall henceforth be using "their aeroplane route was via Spain". 😁

Could someone explain the Malaga airport reference to me? I've been on here for a while, but that one has gone over my head 😄

I have sent the Hannah Barnes article to a couple of my friends - one who is 'be kind' but is starting to see the issue and another who doesn't really know enough to have formed much an opinion. I wish the case in the Supreme court got more media coverage. I heard it mentioned on the radio mostly, not on TV.

Airport code for Malaga is AGP. Which also stands for autogynephile.

People were getting targeted for using the word autogynephile, or the acronym, so they found a coded way to say it.

Obvs I'm hoping case goes in FWS's favour. However, if it goes in SG's favour then I really hope there will be lots more coverage at that point. All my friends have an opinion on assisted dying and are happy to voice it becaue the pros and cons have been well-aired. But I hit a blank wall when trying to discuss GI because it rarely comes up in MSM and when it does it is hard to unpick the reporting because of pronoun confusion/ bias/ shape-shifting words.

The whole bloody point of the law is that there are bad actors.

Exactly.

I'm all for freedom of expression and, at a societal level, not making judgements based on people's appearances. However, it's also important that we do judge on what we can see before our eyes when it comes to instinct and it's especially important that the law backs us up when doing so.

Here's a case study:

I'm allowed to find it a little odd that Grayson Perry (who doesn't identify as a woman, except if course when in character as Clare) has paired blue bunny ears with a black codpiece to go with this yellow dress - see photo. At a children's charity event - see same photo.

I'm also allowed to find it odd that Grayson's current tour invites me to "find out if you really are thoroughly good or maybe quite evil, but in a fun way."

https://www.atgtickets.com/shows/grayson-perry-are-you-good/

Setting aside my thoughts, my instincts, about what I might do if I ran a children's charity and Grayson wanted to help out, what I really want is a law that makes it very clear where the lines are.

Yes, we all know Grayson is a man because Grayson is very clear himself about this. When he spoke to Kirsty Young on radio 4 about getting a bit of a kick out of dressing as Clare (I can't remember exactly how he phrased it) we're laughing along because that's just what we do I guess. To be fair, I do find Grayson witty whenever he's on a panel show.

But where's the line?

Where's the law that allows me to recognise that there is a man in a dress if all that man has to do, if he then says he's not a man, is get a £5 certificate. Now she is a woman and can enter women's sports, women's changing rooms etc etc. Erm.

It's worth mentioning again that that line now is the GRA/GRC. Or it hopefully will be when the judgement is delivered, given Ruth Crawford made it clear that without a GRC saying "female", it's not possible to legally be a woman.

Yep, it's a line. A very daft one.

Obviously Grayson Perry himself may just carry on as things are, leaving Clare as his alter ego.

As has been posted above (possibly thread 2?), David Williams is apparently no longer a man, having come out as "probably non-binary". David is sooooooooooooooo close here to the "I'm a lady" character when explaining this non-binary identity as being related to wearing a skirt:

https://dai.ly/x99sdn0

Unless the law is clear and sensible, who can possibly say where the line between a character and reality sits?

Allowing people to apply for certificates is completely unworkable.

However, one step at a time.

For clarity, I'm not saying that Grayson Perry or David Walliams are bad actors. I'm talking about laws to stop those that are.

Edited to add: I think I'm OK with the pronoun usage on this post re David Walliams, given the phrase was "probably non-binary". However, I have re-written without pronouns just in case. Hopefully everything else is within the guidelines 🤞

Tbh I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that anyone who turns up to a children's charity event in that costume is a bad actor.

Yes and let's be clear, that isn't a codpiece it's a strap-on dildo...

Grayson Perry isn't a stupid man. He must be sitting there thinking fucking hell, how am I getting away with this shit

biological males without GRCs who are attracted to women are simply heterosexual men

It's a fiver for a man to become a lesbian.

Jeez, becoming a lesbian is now a stocking filler