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

I agree. But what does that constitute? Cheek swab?

It's no longer your problem, though. You perceived a male person to be a male person and lawfully discriminated on that basis. It's up to the male person to prove that you discriminated against a female person with the PC of GR.

Step one of which would be for them to establish that they are in fact female. A birth certificate with an altered sex marker would be at least 18 years "younger" than the person presenting it. so that would tell you they are in fact the opposite sex.

If I've read the guidance aright, they can choose to have their actual birth date on the falsified amended birth certificate.

Home Office Gender recognition
Version 22.0 Guidance for His Majesty’s Passport Office staff examining passport applications from customers who ask for a change of gender on their passport

under "Birth certificate issued in a new gender"

Oh, right. So the date of issue of the altered certificate can be falsified as well?

Surely they can't alter their date of birth on the new birth certificate???

That's astonishing!

So a birth certificate can be a complete work of fiction.

I was also astounded at how ignorant the judges were - you'd think they'd have done a bit of background reading beforehad. I think their ignorance illustrates the problem - people just don't see the issue, unless it either affects them or stares them in the face Isla Bryson style

Can you ask for an original BC?

It still isn't the provider's problem, I wouldn't have thought. Male person turns up, male person turned away. Male person returns with BC to "prove" they are female - up to provider whether they accept it. If they don't, nothing male person can do. They have no standing to make a claim under the EA because all male persons are being excluded. Unless they are in fact a female - a WCM, perhaps? But in practice a female like that is unlikely to be seeking out women-only provision.

In hindsight I could understand not appreciating the effects until pointed out, but I was disappointed that they didn't know the basic terminology. They did seem to have made great strides in understanding by the following day, so i give them credit for that.

Just to add, the same applies for spent convictions for posts exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act. Candidates are supposed to declare such information during their application process, but this relies on them being honest.

Indeed. Just shows how inadequate the "very speshul secret training" provided for the judiciary by Gendered Intelligence was.
Maya Forstater fought hard to get the details into the public eyer but I think failed. The judiciary / MoJ fought very hard to keep the details secret from the public - likely the embarrassment factor was too great if we were to find outv what judges were actually told 😂

hiyamaya.net/2021/10/19/gendered-intelligence-trains-judges-in-secret-i-am-going-to-court-to-try-to-break-the-secrecy/

I assume the judges go through all the evidence together so will have some interesting discussions to make sure they all have a shared understanding.

For me, no one can make sense of a law that says a natal female with a GRC who becomes pregnant is not entitled to the maternity or pregnancy protected characteristic because they are a man. This is so fundamental that sex has to mean natal sex.

Just wanted to say how absolutely bonkers that ScotGov flow-chart linked to above is. How can whether you are gay or straight or lesbian be affected by a piece of you have (or, even madder, that another person has)? Do they ever read this rubbish back to themselves out loud?

To be fair to the Scottish government, I think the flowchart was made by someone else. However, it's exactly the logic they presented in court when Ruth Crawford said/agreed that a TW without a GRC was a heterosexual man but a TW with a GRC was a lesbian woman.

The real idiots here aren't the judges. It's people like Nicola Sturgeon who could have chosen to put a stop to this but instead doubled down, even when recognising quite evidently that it made no sense. That clip of Nicola Sturgeon refusing to say whether Isla Bryson is a man or a woman (and settling on the bizarre answer of "that person is a rapist"... thus creating rapist-gender) says it all really. She knew what she was saying made no sense and she didn't dare complete the "logic" the way that Ruth Crawford did. Instead she presumably just hoped that everyone would agree it was obvious Isla wasn't a woman and the whole thing would go away.

It still isn't the provider's problem, I wouldn't have thought.

okay, that makes sense. You refuse entry on the basis you think that's a man, and it's up to the man to provide evidence they're not, but not only that, you don't have to accept the evidence if you don't think it's unequivocal.

That would be great!

(Except we all know that service providers want to avoid hassle).

(Except we all know that service providers want to avoid hassle).

Indeed! But at least it's a clearer message.

Just giving this one a bump.

And particularly this bit:

That felt quite decisive for me. It seems to demonstrate that the equality act defines sex as biological sex at least some of the time ... which would surely prevent the judges from concluding that Parliament intended to redefine it in terms of legal sex?

Presumably "some of the time" is enough for "all of the time" when it comes to the definition of a word. Its meaning must remain consistent once it has been agreed upon, otherwise the Act is unworkable at the most basic level. Therefore the intent is clear: sex means biological sex, not sex modified by a GRC.

In reality, it's likely that the TM in this weren't even considered when the law was made. However, good luck to anyone arguing that line of thinking - equally, the Scottish government sounded ridiculous when they tried to suggest its intention was to remove maternity rights from any pregnant TM. It's amazing really that a certificate doesn't change how biology works and that TM still can get pregnant. Who knew?

I'm absolutely staggered to learn that a date of birth can be legally changed, if that's correct.

I may be mistaken. It may be that there is an option with regard to the date the birth certificate was issued, rather than the date of birth.

If I understand SG correctly, TW are never W.

Without a GRC TW are men. With a GRC both their sex and gender are female. In that case, they are not trans, are they? There is nothing distinguishing someone who became a woman via a GRC from those who were women without the use of GRCs. We are all equally of certificated female sex and gender.

So no TW is a woman, according to SG.

the thing that has been obvious during all this is that the judges and all the lawyers are talking as though we can't tell that the 6'4" beardy unit in front of us, with their GRC and birth certificate with an F was actually born as a baby boy.

All the talk, all the discussions are based on the erroneous belief that we can't tell

Agreed, Brefugee.
I was desperate for someone to say something like this during the hearing. They got close, but didn't spell it out.

I just hope there were pictures of MCW in the submissions (which I didn't get round to reading before the hearing started).

Yes, this has never made sense.

Actually all these women (born female) who don't think they have a gender identity that matches their sex are arguably "more" trans than the certified-only women who have a woman gender.

The lawmakers had men like Blair White in mind when drafting the legislation and not men like Isla Bryson 😣

do the supreme court judges look at the evidence / statements alone, or do they have teams? Do they do any additional research (like browsing on mumsnet for starters!)

According to the SG, there's no such thing as a TW altogether. There's males who may or may not enjoy a bit of the old cross dressing, and there's Penis Women, who are males with a GRC. There's nothing in between (they have wisely decided not to comment any further on the contested genders of At It Gender and Rapist Gender)