Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Supreme Court For Women Scotland

188 replies

Cismyfatarse · 07/03/2025 06:32

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Floisme · 07/03/2025 12:04

My consolation is that I imagine the Labour Party are even more nervous than I am. If the ruling goes against women then I think it would be pretty hard for them to continue insisting that all that's needed are some tighter guidelines (not that I'd put it past some of them.) It would be a baptism of fire for Jacqui Smith, that's for sure

Snowypeaks · 07/03/2025 12:07

Scout2016 · 07/03/2025 10:25

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.

Most of those cases are/ought to be a slam dunk anyway - even a GRC can't confer the right to be included in a women's RCC therapy group, for example. Males can lawfully be excluded on the basis of Sex or GR. And it's established at first instance Trib level that failure to provide women-only services at all, or adequately, discriminates directly against the individual and indirectly against all female service users/employees.
It's rights of association which will be affected by a judgement along the lines of ScotGov's or EHRC's arguments. Lesbians most of all. Effectively ceasing to exist as a group, as AR explains so eloquently.

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 12:07

If the ruling goes against against FWS then it does give an opportunity to go to the ECHR. That would mean finally the case for women is finally heard there and a win there would have huge implications in other countries too. A lose there would be even more devastating though.

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 12:10

It's rights of association which will be affected by a judgement along the lines of ScotGov's or EHRC's arguments. Lesbians most of all. Effectively ceasing to exist as a group, as AR explains so eloquently.

It is not lesbians most of all. It is women effectively ceasing to exist as a group. The rights of lesbians simply follow from that.

fanOfBen · 07/03/2025 12:15

I dunno whether going to the European Court of Human Rights (I'm not the only one who hates that its acronym is so similar to that of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, right?) would be a sensible strategy, given that it's not really clear which way it would go and there's already a fair amount of sentiment that we ought to withdraw from it anyway. I think I'd rather argue for a change in British law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

Snowypeaks · 07/03/2025 12:17

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 12:10

It's rights of association which will be affected by a judgement along the lines of ScotGov's or EHRC's arguments. Lesbians most of all. Effectively ceasing to exist as a group, as AR explains so eloquently.

It is not lesbians most of all. It is women effectively ceasing to exist as a group. The rights of lesbians simply follow from that.

It is lesbians most of all - women in general could still have women-only shelters, RCCs, communal public toilets, but not book clubs or walking groups. Lesbians could not separate themselves as lesbians at all.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 14:18

fanOfBen · 07/03/2025 12:15

I dunno whether going to the European Court of Human Rights (I'm not the only one who hates that its acronym is so similar to that of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, right?) would be a sensible strategy, given that it's not really clear which way it would go and there's already a fair amount of sentiment that we ought to withdraw from it anyway. I think I'd rather argue for a change in British law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

Agree, the EU institutions seem pretty captured.

fanOfBen · 07/03/2025 14:29

point of pedantry, the ECHR is not an EU institution, is it? That's why we're still in it...

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 14:52

ECHR is part of the Council of Europe which is also captured

https://www.coe.int/en/web/sogi

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 07/03/2025 15:16

Taytoface · 07/03/2025 09:36

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.

Presumably if one but not the other has a certificate, the two men are in a heterosexual relationship.

IwantToRetire · 07/03/2025 17:32

Sorry not time to read all comments and this may have already been said.

The article is really stupid and this focus on lesbians seems to be an angle various legal people who are leeching on this are going on about.

A lesbian is someone who is physically attracted to another biological woman.

The EA is about saying there are "legal" women for various purposes and actually women who are allowed under the SSE to only be biological women.

The court case is about the first category. That allowing trans women to be considered women (remember the case was about women on boards) are (as in sports) having the advantage of male privilege undermining actual women achieving equality.

The court is ruling on the law as written.

And they may say as the EHRC have said its badly written and a mess but yes it does create to types of women.

Whether or not it could be legally challenged I dont know.

But there is absolutely nothing to stop MPs whether bipartisan or majority party re-writing the law.

And it is a great shame that Kemi Badenoch never got to finish the work she started on this.

I fear that if the case in lost Labour will revert to what it always says never mind girls you've still got the SSE which we created specially for you.

And as a discussion on LGB Alliance facebook page pointed out, associations which are not legal entities can be women only (as proved by Bristol Student Feminist Group) so obviously lesbians can form associations.

I know I say this repeatedly the problem actually is that too many peopel have accepted that what Stonewall says is right.

The problem is the men who feel entitled to challenge women.

The problem is that not enought groups, and vast employers like the NHS bother to implement the SSE.

This article is a totally meander off the real issue.

Which is that as written the sex class of women are the only protected characteristic who have to allow those who aren't part of the that sex class to idenditify into it.

I think many wonder whether using the law would help resolve the problem with the EA and how allowing for the GRA has underminded sex based rights.

Nothing will stop entitle men from continuing to try and undermine women's rights.

What is needed is for the EA to be amended.

But I doubt Labour will ever do this.

And I doubt there are enough MPs who support sex based rights who would form a cross party group to achieve this.

The real problem is the law makers.

The opportunists are the men who are deliberately using the badly written EA to try and terrorise women.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:00

The EA is about saying there are "legal" women for various purposes and actually women who are allowed under the SSE to only be biological women.

The EA says nothing of the sort. "Legal women" is one interpretation, it's not something in the EA itself.

The GRA says that a GRC acquired "gender" becomes their gender "for all purposes," and clarifies that means their sex will change to the opposite sex.

That's the point of contention here, which definition the EA relies on, biological sex or biological sex plus opposite sex with GRCs.

So far the decision has been that a GRC changes sex except for the exceptions. But that's not very workable.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:01

What is needed is for the EA to be amended.

What is needed is to fully repeal the GRA.

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 18:08

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:01

What is needed is for the EA to be amended.

What is needed is to fully repeal the GRA.

This. But also ‘gender reassignment’ removed as a protected characteristic.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:12

"A third consequence is that it makes it impossible for lesbians to form associations organised groups of at least 25 members that are open only to females. It requires such associations to admit males with GRCs who are attracted to women. Whatever the law says, for many lesbians these are simply heterosexual men."

I think Akua Reindorf KC, lesbian barrister specialising in equality law, probably has a fairly good grasp of the law around clubs and associations in the EA 2010 vis a vis sexual orientation/sex, and I'd be inclined to take her opinion (and that of both sides' legal teams in the Supreme Court case, where this issue was discussed) as holding more weight than a vague reference to a discussion on Facebook.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:13

This. But also ‘gender reassignment’ removed as a protected characteristic.

Yes, that too. The protection from discrimination could come under belief, maybe.

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 18:17

Which is that as written the sex class of women are the only protected characteristic who have to allow those who aren't part of the that sex class to idenditify into it.

This is not true. Women can also identify into the sex class of ‘men’ using a GRC - which means gay men cannot have clubs without women too. And there is the complete mess of women then not being protected under the PC of pregnancy and maternity unless the word woman is taken to mean different things in different parts of the act.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 18:19

Yes, @AshKeys it's a total shitshow.

BetsyM00 · 07/03/2025 18:28

The EA is about saying there are "legal" women for various purposes and actually women who are allowed under the SSE to only be biological women.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. We don't know which interpretation of the EA is correct until the Supreme Court hands down its judgment.

And if it is deemed there are "legal" women this does not mean single-sex exceptions can be used to provide services only to biological women. Even if we can agree on how the exceptions work to keep men with GRCs out, there is absolutely no mechanism in the EA to keep women with GRCs in. Hence, the whole argument about how they can possibly access pregnancy and maternity provisions.

fanOfBen · 07/03/2025 18:52

I just found this: https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment
saying that judgements are usually handed down in person at 9:45 on Wednesdays, and announced a week in advance - with nothing upcoming in the next week :-( So does that mean we have to wait at least another week, in fact? OTOH, they do have an exceptional-cases getout, and the only judgements on that page seem to have been handed down yesterday, i.e. Thursday not Wednesday, so shrug?

Future judgments - UK Supreme Court

Future judgments

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/03/2025 19:09

I assumed it would be in person.

Pluvia · 07/03/2025 19:10

AshKeys · 07/03/2025 09:05

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

There's a general election next year in Wales. 11 of the 60 MSs are standing down including Mark Drakeford and Jane Hutt, two of the worst TRAs. The Welsh Assembly is increasing number to 90 and the current government under Eluned Morgan is almost imperceptibly pulling back from the trans agenda because they know it's toxic for them. Welsh Labour is terrified of Reform and knows that if it doesn't drop all the trans nonsense it'll be giving away winnable seats. Like Labour in Westminster, I think a decision has been taken to slowly back away from GI whenever possible. Analiese Dodds (TRA) has been replaced by Jacqui Smith who's GC. I think there'll be much more of this. The big issue will be rooting out transactivism behind the scenes, but with more, bolder pro-women's rights people in position I hope it can be identified and destroyed before it gets a chance to do any more damage.

BetsyM00 · 07/03/2025 19:25

Have a look at the Supreme Court's Twitter page, they announce on Thursdays the decisions to be read out in court the following Wednesday. So I guess we'll get 6 days advance notice!
x.com/UKSupremeCourt

Brefugee · 07/03/2025 20:23

Since so many of us dress as men, time it was sauce for the goose? (I think yhe ruling will go against women. And we must post that paragraph from the Times article EVERYWHERE)

Bannedontherun · 07/03/2025 20:38

Brefugee · 07/03/2025 20:23

Since so many of us dress as men, time it was sauce for the goose? (I think yhe ruling will go against women. And we must post that paragraph from the Times article EVERYWHERE)

We could all self id as men on mass like man Friday with knobs on.