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

If they win the point that 'section 9 women' are women -that is, certified sex is legal sex - there will be no need for anyone to see a GRC. The GRC changes the birth certificate, and the birth certificate gives the legal sex.

The GRC demonstrates that legal sex differs from bio sex, but the SG argument is that only legal sex matters. So the GRC gives no necessary information.

And I'm pleased to see I wasn't the only one intrigued by the lampposts.

I think there is a huge can of worms (legislation wise) where the terms biological male and female were clear in Acts of Parliament before all the gender nonsense and GRCs reared their ugly heads.

The SC judges are going to very very careful about the implications of any judgements they make.

I agree that too few people bring up safeguarding.

I know there are different approaches to the goal that we all ultimately want. And one of those is to forensically pick apart the legal aspects, and stay on it, and on it, until laws are clarified and if necessary changed.

But I would also like the numerous safeguarding failures to be put before judges, etc, so they know exactly what they are signing up to, if they don't keep them front and centre. What they are risking.

And when those risks are realised, which they will be, who ignored them and what it resulted in.

Does anyone know if the Scottish government (or anyone else on that side of the argument) is bound by the stuff they have just argued in court, regardless of whether they win or lose? If (when) there are more court cases can their arguments at the supreme court level (for example, that if you don't have a GRC you haven't changed sex) be referred to or is it only the judgement?

Sorry, amemd to that - the above applies if 'certified sex is legal sex for all.purposes, no exceptions.

From a legal point of view, I don't think they are. But it gives people a nice solid bit of evidence to point to when they contradict themselves.

This is a great one to share with people who have very little idea, thank you.
I find it so hard to explain this court case, and it's importance to people!
I appreciate Andrew Marr's comment that it is bigger than he realised and consternation that it's not more widely covered.

Surely that means that for holders of a GRC there could be no exclusion from any single sex service as* *a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim because they are treated for all purposes as the sex on their (revised) birth certificate.

So natal males with a GRC could never be refused access to provisions such as rape crisis centres or female prisons. And surely ftm prisoners with a GRC would have to be placed in the male estate?

I can't even see how the Section 195 rules around sport could be applied if it's just down to birth certificates. If gender recognition certificates are to remain a secret and an individual never has to show one, then how can a transgender individual be excluded from anything?

Sorry I meant to quote NoBintorungsHereMate

If they win the point that 'section 9 women' are women -that is, certified sex is legal sex - there will be no need for anyone to see a GRC. The GRC changes the birth certificate, and the birth certificate gives the legal sex.
The GRC demonstrates that legal sex differs from bio sex, but the SG argument is that only legal sex matters. So the GRC gives no necessary information

Quite. No one should have to face the threat of a hundred thousand pound court case every time they want to provide a special service for women only.

Has there been any mention at all of safeguarding law?

Dolatowski I'm sure would get a GRC if he wanted one (if he doesn't have one already). He's clearly mentally disturbed. He's out in the community now as far as I'm aware. He served his paltry time for attacking a girl in a space her parents were deceived into thinking would be free of men. Iirc some of the news reports said her parents reported her still having nightmares a year later.

How many young girls lives are acceptable collateral damage for badly enacted law? That rich lawyers (whose kids probably never go near a Morrison's) are now pontificating over because 'precedent' plus the fact most laws were made by men and the legal system is so steeped in patriarchy and misogyny that children don't seem to have protections any more. Certainly not compared to men's wants.

And anyway, it's currently illegal under existing laws not to have single sex toilets in schools over the age of 8. Yet schools are breaking this law all the time, and girls being excluded from education. What are the lawyers doing? Sweet fuck all (honourable exceptions for the Ben Cooper's etc). Until there are consequences nothing will change. Don't get me started on rape laws.

Even the employment tribunals changed not much. The sums awarded are not a deterrent for organisations with endless taxpayer funding.

Increasingly I think political change, as has happened in the US is the way. There are more working class people than there are rich people and working class people know this shit is dangerous twaddle that harms children.

It's wonderful to see people finally able to speak the truth in the US.

If this goes the grc=woman way then any male member of school staff can pay £5 and get a piece of paper that will say he can stay in accommodation overnight with your child on school trips and likely you as a parent will have your ability to make decisions about how to safeguard your child taken away.

Similarly women presumably cannot say no to intimate care by men with a grc. And the bloke intimidating women in Darlington NHS women's spaces can just get a GRC and those women will have no protection under ea2010.

The number of grcs will skyrocket. The levels of prison onset gender dysphoria is a forewarning of how it will go.

Don't forget that there are exclusions for single sex on the basis of gender reassignment. The notes to the Equality Act specify that it's possible in some circumstances to exclude people with a GRC from single sex spaces where it's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim to do so. Which yes, does suggest that it was intended to be a higher bar to exclude men with a GRC than other men.

That is to say there are exceptions to the prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination when it comes to single sex. There are also exceptions to the GRA itself for religious bodies and primogeniture.

But agree with pp that most places are so captured they won't invoke the exceptions or alternatively are scared of mantrums / lawsuits that they won't.

Look at ERCC.

And those exceptions don't specify when to apply them. It should be a requirement not an 'oh you can if you want' when it comes to safeguarding children. I just don't understand how all these highly paid lawyers completely ignore safeguarding protections for children (which are law). It's like only some bits of the law matter.

I'd love the judges in this case to be told about primogeniture, I'm sure they don't know.

It's so fucking cynical, it's massively eye opening.

Could I ask a question about the concept of 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'?

Well, two questions really. The onus always seems to be on those arguing for single-sex spaces to demonstrate that exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Why isn't the onus of proof ever on the claim that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment requires the inclusion (in particular situations) of people with that characteristic? I don't mean people with a GRC, I mean the wider group of people who fall under that characteristic?

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to all those who are going through a process or who are considering going through that process (as well as applying to those who have completed it and received a GRC).

So here is my second question: Given that the protected characteristic is essentially defined in relation to a specified process (not to a state of being such as 'gender identity'), what are the 'legitimate aims' that might reasonably be considered to be associated with the protected characteristic?

To tease out the answer to that question, we need to look at what the process is. I know it isn't fully defined in legislation, but a key part of it is 'living as a woman' for a specified period in order to build up the evidence that the intention to transition is serious and persistent.

Importantly, from the point of view of the reassignment process, 'living as a woman' simply means building up a certain evidence base. We know that the evidence required is very slight. You are not required (for example) to prove that you have joined a lesbian dating agency or a lesbian walking group. You are not required to prove that, in any or all areas of life you are accepted as if you actually are a woman. You are not required to prove that you get changed in the women's changing rooms at the gym, or receive counselling at a women's rape refuge. You need to provide some documentary evidence, such as a utilities bill that titles you as Mrs/miss/ms, and you may need a letter from someone such as your employer.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is intended to pprotect people from being discriminated against on the grounds of their participation in a process that is, in fact, quite minimal. Surely that must mean that the situations in which their inclusion in single sex spaces is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim are also quite minimal? This is because the protection afforded relates to a process not an identity.

At most, the procedural requirements of 'living as a woman' seem to require employers, pubs, restaurants, etc, not to discriminate against someone because their presentation conforms to opposite-sex norms. Why would it require more than that? Why would it require random lesbians to admit you to their group? Why would it require raped women to be counselled alongside you? All that the doctor needs is a couple of bits of paper.

Is that not dependent on the GRC holder voluntarily disclosing that they are transgender as it's my understanding that a service provider cant ask

And yes, if suddenly, a GRC legitimises everything in the eyes of TRA's, they'll be going mad for one.

And then that's the next stage.

Normal people do not accept that paying a fiver for a lady ticket should give every predator in the land access to vulnerable women and children.

Even if, snort, they have to wait two years to do it.

"A lady ticket"

I'd say that when genderism was at its peak, and all legal interpretation was tilted in favour of supporting it, the term process was broad enough to encompass the internal struggle a trans person would go through as they were deciding on where their gender identity should be.

AlbertCamusflage · Today 10:14

Could I ask a question about the concept of 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'?

What an excellent post.

Is that not dependent on the GRC holder voluntarily disclosing that they are transgender as it's my understanding that a service provider cant ask

In the vast majority of cases it's going to be obvious. Asking for a birth certificate for a single sex service seems perfectly proportionate to me.