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.

In real life do they really lose any benefits, health or otherwise? Don’t the Kind Brigade just go oh poor poor you, lets just ignore your fk.n mental illness/sexual perversion and treat you like the very extrodianarily brave trans you are.

I remember him, can’t believe that was the result, yukm and I presume he’s still teaching children, how horrifying

I believe so, but now dressed conventionally as a man and referred to as such.

All very fair points. I was thinking more about the detransitioners when it comes to time off for medical appointments but also how far off we are from the medicalisation of trans(-identifying) people being classed under the mental health umbrella.

Whether it's someone changing their physical body to match a belief that they hold or as part of a fetish-driven fantasy (and the sometimes blurry lines between these two points), the reality is that it's life-impacting to do so and potentially also life-limiting. So ultimately, it's a mental health issue that anyone would do this.

The less we treat transition or gender identity as a specially deserving case, the better for everyone in the long run.

Fully agree.

The Abortion Act 1967 creates exemptions to an abortion ban codified in <digs through legislation.gov.uk> the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, which mentions only women.

So a man who became pregnant wouldn't be a criminal if he tried to self-abort, in theory. What one of us needs to do is test this: identify as a man and get a GRC, then get pregnant, then video herhimself taking illegally-obtained abortion pills and surrender herhimself to the police for arrest. We can all crowdfund a top-notch defence barrister to argue that a TM with a GRC can't be prosecuted under a law that explicitly mentions women because of the "for all purposes" clause and OATPA's abortion ban isn't one of the explicitly-listed exceptions. If that argument fails, it proves the FWS argument that sex in law refers to biology. If that argument is successful, it provides a means for every woman in the UK to decriminalise abortion for herself by getting a GRC so that she is legally a man.

I'd volunteer but I think I'll be too old to get pregnant in two years' time when the waiting period for a GRC ends. Anyone fancy taking one for the team?

Ah, thanks, I was only partly remembering it then. Having already outed myself as about the same age as Naomi Cunningham I'm not a candidate! Don't think I could in conscience recommend it. Certainly not to someone who might need pregnancy or maternity protection in employment, as that would also be out.

Shite headline but substance is good.

Swinney vows to meet women’s group who oppose trans equality

www.thetimes.com/article/d11ab5e7-195a-4432-b3d0-412a3b080404?shareToken=67da8bca52b2be3ccf176bb10ee33f6c

The headline seems to have changed.

Swinney to meet feminist campaigners who oppose SNP trans reforms

Better headline - I wonder when they changed it.

Archive archive.ph/MdXpp

Mumsnet being monitored to check we are not being sarcastic harpies.....and then they realise we are right.

I have to take flexitime to attend cancer-related appointments, even though it's classed as a disability. I don't get anything extra.

I'm sorry to hear that. It doesn't mean that transition or even detransition should have more protection than other medical conditions / disabilities.

Time off for pregnancy / maternity care is a special case for legal protection, because it's critical healthcare for mothers and babies which they might not get otherwise. There's a clear measurable benefit to society.

I think that was the point Tallisker was making. Why should someone get time off for cosmetic surgery because they identify as trans, when the rest of the population don’t even get paid time for life-saving surgery cancer treatment?

Yes, I think we're all in agreement here.

I feel it's extra painful to refuse detranstioners though because so many have been so totally lied to and let down by the very people we trust to know better. Teachers, doctors, psychologists, politicians, journalists. It's hard not to feel that society owwes them some recompense. But there have always been social fads which have damaged young peopl and medical fads/negligence which have done harm, and the Equality Act isn't the right place to deal with them.

The latest announcement of upcoming judgements at the Supreme Court is out at https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgment and the FWS judgement is not one of them. Isn't this getting a bit odd given that it was said to be imminent? I wonder if something serious is going on behind the scenes in response to the parties being given a chance to quickly object to things in the draft?

Yes, i was expecting to see it announced today.

How many Judges sat to hear this court case.

As it is about a UK wide law it will have been more than one.

Maybe they cant agree.

Or the Labour Government is lobbying and asking not to imply change is needed to the wording of the EA as they have a pretty full agenda!

A joke of course, would never imply that the Government might so something underhand.

@IwantToRetire five judges in total (including the head of the Supreme Court, Lord Reid. The others included Lady Rose and Lady Simler - the only current female Supreme Court judges).

• Lord Reed!

The two other judges were Lord Hodge and Lord Lloyd-Jones

I had the impression, from people who seemed to understand how these things work, that the fact that the judgement was described as imminent earlier suggested that the draft was out; if there was disagreement among the judges, I would expect that to happen earlier and to have been resolved by the time anyone else saw a draft. Of course this was tealeaf reading and may have been wrong. It does seem conceivable that a government might be able to ask for a few weeks' delay in the release of a Supreme Court judgement, so that they can get their response ready; I don't know about that. Well, fingers crossed that we like it when it comes.

Three of the FWS SC judges were involved in the case listed for next week - and that was heard in July 2024 - so quite some time before the FWS case.

Yeah, maybe it's just not as imminent as all that! (Drums fingers.)

Lord Reed did suggest they’d be as quick as possible (so possibly up to eight months or so in legalese!)

I read Lou Reed and was taken aback. Walk on the wild side, indeed.