Supreme Court For Women Scotland

[Cismyfatarse]

The Supreme Court is about to tell us whether we are women

www.thetimes.com/article/6a59421a-6945-4121-9c02-44c5059e0602?shareToken=7e6c99a84676224be2c793794ffb6028

It looks like this is imminent. Article by Akua Reindorf. Haven't read it yet but here for anyone that wants to read it.

Sadly Labour are not worried enough yet. They have four years and a huge majority to do a lot of damage first.

Sadly, that's very true. However it looks like they are about to launch a whole load of cuts to benefits too. They are alienating their traditional support.

My nightmare is that the issue goes back to the legislature and the government takes the opportunity to reform/"modernise" the EA by replacing GR with Gender Identity or adding GI to the meaning of Sex, etc, etc.

ETA: yes, it would be insane, but they are all in on this and they may think they have time to bring public opinion round to it after the fact.

Excellent article.

Holy fuck, I can't believe this is the world we now live in.

I think Labour are very worried about Reform. They may have a huge majority but lots of individual seats were very close. In four years people will have forgotten the shitshow of Tory rule but will remember the winter fuel allowance being removed from lots of people on low incomes.

I feel very worried about this.

One of the Supreme Court judges said something like "Whatever we decide has to be workable in practice".

So surely the ruling can't be "Males can go in female spaces if they have a GRC, but no-one can ask to see the GRC" as that would not be workable in practice. It would be like saying you need a passport to get on a plane, but no-one can ask to see the passport.

This is where creating a legal fiction gets you, to a place where 2 men, with 2 bits of paper can be lesbians. The same two men, without the bits of paper, are gay men. The article lays this madness out I think better than anything I have seen.

I am not sure what the best outcome is here. That GRCs do not qualify men to use all women's services and spaces, or that the law is, a man with a GRC is a woman for all intents and purposes but this is clearly bonkers and we need to go back and change the legislation so that is doesn't create this madness.

I also don't think this is a fringe issue that will only play to the Reform crowd. I think even the dumb ass be-kind sheeple might go, what now? when this is all laid out.

There are a lot of seats that Labour only won because Reform split the vote.

Excellent article, thank you for sharing.

But if those who might have voted Conservative decide that the Tories are a busted flush and vote Reform, and those who might have voted for Labour are pissed off over gender woo or the WFA or other policies and actions, and also vote Reform, the picture will be different next time round.

Thanks for sharing OP, really excellent article that says exactly how it is for lesbians.

This judgment will be an important one.

For those asking how she knows the decision is imminent, counsel involved in a case get a tip off that a judgment is about to come out. After that, they are sent a draft version of the judgment which is subject to an embargo, and they take a look at it to make sure there are no glaring errors which need to be corrected before it is handed down. They are under very strict rules not to say anything about what the judgment contains (if you leak a judgment before it is handed down you can get in trouble with the Bar regulator and it might possibly be a contempt), but they are allowed to indicate that the judgment is about to come out.

This is interesting, thanks for sharing. I am trying to read between the lines now to see if it's going to be good or bad news.

As am I, it seems like the only logical outcome to the point I can't imagine it would go any other way. Although, that being said, logic hasn't exactly prevailed until now but hopefully this is a turning point.

Logic went out the door when the ECHR decided that a man had the right to ‘privacy’ even though everyone could see he was a man.

If FWS win, that should make the other legal cases slam dunks shouldn't it? Because if I have understood it correctly it's not a change in the law and nothing is being applied retrospectively. Whatever they say the law is now is what it was when the rape support in Brighton, NHS, countless employers etc were breaching it. So the best defence they could have would be "we did it but we didn't know we were wrong to do it". Which isn't much of a defence and shouldn't wash.
Is that a correct interpretation or am I too simplistic?

I know there is also the reasonable person argument - would a reasonable person that thought that X would cause Y..? In which case you'd have would a reasonable person think that a man becomes a woman just by saying he does? Which surely most people would say no to.

@CarefulN0w cutting benefits may be unpopular with the Labour champagne socialists but it is less unpopular with working class adults than you may think. There is a very strong work ethic with some labour voters.

Reform is a big threat to Labour, a Reform/ Conservative agreement not to contest certain seats a bigger threat.

Labour really cant afford to piss off women too but misogyny in the party is so strong it it wont recognise that.

In most cases the law as it is currently understood (by the courts) is sufficient of a slam dunk. The only limiting factor for most people suffering discrimination from these organisations is the cost of bringing a case and the wish to move on in life. Winning a legal case can often be a phyrric victory.

The definition of a woman in the EA isn't actually a key factor in many of the current cases, I don't think - as most organisations (like the Brighton support service) operate on the basis of self-ID anyway.

Operating on the basis of self ID is not lawful though.

And that’s the problem. Organisations have been stonewalled to the hilt who have told them that operating on the basis of self ID is fine

So do we think imminent means today (noon?) or Monday, then? Presumably not at the weekend?

Given the explanation above (thanks WeeBisom) I guess there's even less point in reading between the lines - if she knows what the ruling will be, Akua presumably couldn't change her position from the one presented by the organisation she's associated with, lest that be interpreted as a comment on the ruling she's not supposed to comment on. (If I were she and had anticipated the situation, I'd have written the article before I knew the ruling.)

I still can’t get my head round this.

If it goes the wrong way then don’t the definitions of man and women change. It is biblical in proportions surely? 2025 would have to be ‘year 0’ in that all medicine, medical literature, textbooks, in fact any written word, had to clarify what woman and man meant in a different way. Children would have to be taught that anything broadcast or written pre-2025 was where woman meant an adult human female. And after 2025 it didn’t.

Am I missing something about how fundamental this is?

I think it might be even worse than you suggest, Hermyknee - it may be a case of "we have always been at war with Eastasia".

So do we think imminent means today (noon?) or Monday, then? Presumably not at the weekend?

They always seem to be released about 10/11 am