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

It was at one point but I just looked and the current policy is to accept both bio females who say they are boys and bio males who say they are girls. They also accept bio females who claim to be non binary but exclude bio males who claim to be non binary so fuck knows what they are aiming for because it’s all very muddled.

Maybe they should rebrand as ‘Self ID Girls, Bio Girls, Trans Boys and Nonbinary AFAB Guides’?

edited to add the link: https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/supporting-trans-young-members/

That is unfair to the Guardian. The report covers yesterday's hearing, which was essentially about one side of the case.

Well if that is the case just shows how unprofessional the Guardian is.

Or maybe because they exist in their own tiny echo chamber they dont even bother to speak with those outside of LOJ's fanzine circle.

Like I am sure many do I searched on line for news reports. This came up. I read it. ie as many other random readers might.

They should have included a foot note saying, the article covered day 2 and for day 1 see (link to article)

All they have done, but maybe wanted this, is created a headline that implies transgender people have rights.

Sloppy or deliberate misrepresentative "journalism"?

The House of Commons Library has posted this new (updated?) briefing

Gender recognition and the Equality Act 2010
This briefing analyses the debate on the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

Off work this afternoon and catching up - thank you all for the commentary and links.
Off topic: I'm going to have to Google the case about discrimination related to the height of lamp posts - did I hear that properly?

Or maybe because you are so enraged that you overlooked the fact that there is a link to day 1 in the article. Also, if you click on the Transgender link to the left of the headline, that takes you to a page where both articles are listed alongside each other.

I'm not sure what you searched for, but a search for "for women scotland supreme court" on Google shows the Guardian's report of the first day twice before listing the report of the second day.

When reporting a trial, the Guardian (and, indeed, most other news sites) just report the current days proceedings and don't include links to the previous days. Not sloppy or deliberate misrepresentation at all. Just normal journalism.

For those who haven't seen, or maybe dont care, it seems the WPUK is closing. Or at least not being active.

Their statement read to me like they trusted Labour to do the right thing!

Anyway not to derail this thread, there is a thread about it https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5219610-wpuk-statement

Sloppy or deliberate misrepresentative "journalism"?

I think most people here stopped giving the Guardian the benefit of the doubt quite some time back. There have been too many bad faith articles. Although @prh47bridge makes a fair point about trial reporting. But if the Graun thinks readers no longer see it as a paper of record, it only has itself to blame.

It’s deffo brand new, no time to read it til later tho!

Kucinghitam · Today 11:47

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

As they decided to dig in and fight FWS on the beaches, should that be Littoral Gendercide?

It looks as though they're expecting major changes. I don't think the changes will be good enough but if they get rid of the 'cannot ask to see the certificate' this will be a step in the right direction. I'm hoping more changes will come because, my god, did the case show how badly women have been treated

I think they's been following threads here on FWR and sort of did a double take, and realised this hasn't been thought through.

The introductory notice to the report defintely has points made on these threads!

Lets hope they didn't appropriate them through "scraping"!

Thanks for setting up thread 3, the discussion has been very interesting and enlightening to date!!

Having read through the various commentary here and followed Tribunal Tweets/Nick Wallis over the last couple of days, and having skimmed the written submissions, I’m still not entirely clear why Sex Matters and For Women Scotland seem to be involved in the same case but arguing for different interpretations of the effect the GRA and EA are having on women’s rights.

I found myself more entirely in agreement with Aidan O’Neill’s arguments to the Supreme Court than Ben Cooper’s during the hearing and I felt that Sex Matters’ interpretation of the issues was somehow less strong in support of women having exclusive women’s rights and a bit more in keeping with the EHRC’s opinion (which seemed to be a fudge trying to keep both sides happy in a situation where there’s an actual conflict of rights so this isn’t possible).

Could anyone give me an idea of why these two GC orgs are fighting for slightly different legal interpretations/protections for women but are still seen as supporting each other’s argument?

Or explain to me if I have understood matters incorrectly and that they’re both fighting for the same protections for women?

Ta muchly!

It's not unusual (that's your Tom Jones earworm for the day) for different sets of lawyers to analysis complex legal situations differently. They've studied the law, filtered it through the experiences, and have concluded that certain, different, interpretations are more likely to win the appeal.

With respect to Aidan O’Neill’s and Ben Cooper's diffferent styles in presenting arguments, it's easier to impress with the tub-thumping approach than it is with the nuanced finely-argued points approach. But it's not necessarily the first approach that will win the day.

It occurs to me that any one of us probably could suggest answers to the questions that the SG seemed unable to answer. I mean I know broadly a TRA approved and court acceptable answer to ‘what does living as a woman mean?’ that doesn’t rely on stereotypes. I can come up with a sensible explanation about why the GRC isn’t required to change your sex but should exist for those who want it.

so why the hell did the legal teams and clients not anticipate these questions and form a useable stock answer?

Or explain to me if I have understood matters incorrectly and that they’re both fighting for the same protections for women?

Because what they think is the right outcome dont necessarily tally, but the legal question is part of the process they think needs to be addresses.

EHRC’s opinion (which seemed to be a fudge trying to keep both sides happy in a situation where there’s an actual conflict of rights so this isn’t possible)

No it isn't a fudge. It is, which is their job, an interpretation of the 2 laws as currently written. And as the authorised group empowered to see that certain laws are correctly implied it is incredibly important that they have said the interactions, as written are difficult, if not competing, as working laws.

For the group that is appointed to arbitrate or advise on equality legislation, it is really signifigant that they have said to a court, that as written the law(s) are unworkable.

Or explain to me if I have understood matters incorrectly and that they’re both fighting for the same protections for women?

And - see thread about WPUK closing, stopping campaigning

For an example of how confused people are about the law, and the pitfalls of believing TRA propaganda see this Reddit thread, where a site promoting Stonewall law is cited as gospel truth that men who identify as women can use female spaces, even without a GRC.

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/s/URRk1HsQUX

Having only just now watched yesterday morning's session, one thing that stands out is how Crawford throws transwomen without GRCs under the bus. That's because she needs to jettison them to win the case.

Most of the UK transgender subreddit don't seem to have grasped the importance of clarifying in law that only males with GRCs are treated as women in terms of the sex PC. They seem to think it's some arcane legal point.

If Scotgov do win, and it's along the lines they've argued for, the world is their oyster for GRC holders, I wonder if there'll be a large spike in GRC applications.

I imagine so, but many complain that they can't get a GI clinic appointment to start the ball rolling.

I definitely think this is the best thing to come out of the hearing. If the Scottish government lawyers had toed the trans activist line, they'd have had to say that any man who says he is a woman is one, and the GRC makes no difference, thereby sabotaging their own case. To win, it's essential that the GRC, and the GRC alone, changes a man's legal sex.

Unfortunately for them, this line of argument will not endear them to the trans activists, who are already foaming at the mouth. Worse, their own line of reasoning commits them to spouting obvious absurdities, such as saying that
a man without a GRC cannot be a lesbian, but a man with a GRC can.

They are not massively bright overall.

The level of delusion is quite something.

Not read the whole report but in the summary it says the following:

People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.

There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. For example, sports competition organisers are able to lawfully exclude trans people from participating in “gender-affected activity” where this is necessary to ensure fairness or the safety of other competitors.

Separate and single-sex services, such as women-only counselling groups, may also be permitted, where their provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Interesting to see that - 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

Surely ensuring women and girls are protected from acts which may be classed as sexual offences (including vouyerism) or to protect their human rights of dignity or freedom to participate in public life due to their religion meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

Surely ensuring that women and girls have fully consented when it comes to intimate examination meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

Surely to protect lesbians who have same sex attraction meets the threshold of 'legitimate aim'?

And yet we have nurses taking legal action against an NHS trust for one of the above scenarios.

What is a 'legitimate aim'? - the government needs to spell this out because Stonewall don't seem to be aware of the concept.

Indeed having skimmed to the relevant paragraph in the document it says simply that:

In the context of services, the EHRC argued that amending the EA 2010 would
^make it easier to offer a separate-sex or single-sex service to “biological
^
women”. That is, according to the EHRC, the current starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC is able to access a women-only service; a “careful
balancing exercise” then has to be conducted by the service provider to “justify excluding all trans women”.

A biological definition of sex would remove the requirement for a policy to be
objectively justified (as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). This would make it “simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women.”

Which is about as helpful to anyone having to make decisions as a chocolate fireguard at this point.

BUT I'd argue it does very much look like there's a certain leaning in this discussion that biological sex is a defining point that should be present. Of course the whole farce about how you exclude transwomen in settings with the whole GRC / passport ridiculousness isn't touched on at all.

The document is a commons briefing so is aimed at informing all MPs about different perspectives - but ultimately someone has had to sign off on all the wording on this.

It also references Labours position saying:

The Labour Party’s manifesto for the 2024 general election contained a commitment to “modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law”, while retaining the need for someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor before obtaining a GRC.

The non binaries must be fuming at this point.