FWS v Scottish Ministers will be handed down Weds 16th April at 9.45am

[IDareSay]

The Ruling in FWS v Scottish Ministers will be handed down next Weds 16th April at 9.45am It will also be streamed via the UKSC website, so you can watch live.

https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1910272949350695371

When I saw this I thought it should be a new thread rather than added on to existing thread.

Now I am thinking for those of us who wont be able to hear at the time, there needs to be be another thread - not necessarily for comments - but just big and bold ie

FWS women

FWS lost

to save having to skim throught existing posts to get to that vital information, without fainting from anxiety!

You can ask about a GRC. It's one if the many fictions put about by the other side that it's illegal to do so. This is simply not true.

What is illegal is disclosure of someone's trans status (I can't recall if this is solely about possession a GRC or not) if you gain that information in an official capacity

Fingers crossed. But if it doesn't favour our side, it still gives clarity re. what we're opposing. Obfuscation has been so key throughout - less scope for this can also be helpful.

I agree with this. The newspapers were all over this during the FWS court case, and the Peggie case. I think there will be loads of discussion and debate about this whichever way it goes, which is a good thing.

If FWS win, it could be dealt with by ammending the EA to say in all instances use of the word sex means biological.

And then all they have to do is reverse the wording of the SSE to the ??E ie for the very few occassions when a man with a GRC can be regarded as a "legal woman". And they they would have to provide plausible examples of when, if ever, that would be appropriate (proportionate). Although bet they would come up with a long list.

As opposed to currently when "for all purposes" a man with a GRC is a "legal woman" and actual biological women can only obtain or provide services or facilities that are only for biological women and only by proving it is proportionate to do so.

I bet they fudge it somehow on the basis that it has been in existence for a while, and will refer to current accepted custom and practice.

Reminder of this very useful historical analysis of how we reached this point.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5311191-the-equality-act-15-years-old-today-sex-matters-article

The practical implications of single sex facilities disappearing:

Why do we have a gap under public toilet doors? For health and safety
Why do we get rid of the gap when toilets are mixed sex? For privacy
What are we getting rid of by doing that? Health and Safety

Public toilet cubicle design sums it up. The enclosed designs make rescuing a critically ill child or adult in time much less likely, and makes it easier to sexually assault children and women. Evidence shows this. Who is least affected by a change in toilet designs for the new age of everyone’s welcome? Healthy adult men.

Sorry not sure if anyone has already posted this link but the FWS email says
'The ruling on the case will be handed down in person at the Supreme Court, London, on Wednesday 16th April 2025 at 9:45am. It will also be streamed via the UKSC website, so you can watch live.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042
'

Thanks for the thread. I'm the same as everyone else - dreading it.

I agree with @Catiette's point that the clarity will be helpful whichever way this goes. It's always better to know where we stand.

For example, if FWS lose then I don't see how the Labour Government would be able to carry out their manifesto claim that they can make it easier to obtain a GRC and still protect single sex spaces. Starmer was able to fudge that question repeatedly during the election campaign.

And why are women and children's best interests being ditched to provide these new cubicle designs?

To prioritise the feelings of healthy adult men.

All of it misogyny. All of it. Every part of this goes to demonstrate precisely why women (and children) have to have rock tight, solid protections in law that men cannot wangle around, specifically to prevent them being continually trampled and subordinated. And largely by men who like to call themselves 'feminist'.

easier to obtain a GRC and still protect single sex spaces

The whole point of the SSE is that it means anyone with a GRC can be excluded

And Labour as the group who wrote the SSE have alwasy boasted about how this protects women's right to safety.

It is only Stonewall and the Scottish Government who claimed that a man with a GRC is allowed into SSS.

And the EHRC wrote a clarifying statement about this after Kemi Baddenoch did the survey to find out how many organisations understood what the SSE mean.

The issue is to ammend the EA to get the meaning of the word sex clarified to mean biology, so that then there is never an issue whether (which is what the original court case was about) for instance a trans woman counts in terms of getting equal representation of women on company boards. And by implication in sport, in toilets, in same sex relationships, in single sex health provision and so on.

I'm very nervous about this. H and I are both off work so we'll be able to watch.

I think the issue is you’re not allowed to ask for a GRC so it’s effectively self ID via the back door.

It's a myth that you cannot ask for a GRC. TRAs like to insinuate that it's illegal but this is complete nonsense. What you cannot do is 'out' somebody with a GRC if you acquired knowledge of the GRC in an official capacity.

I'm not sure it will be a slam-dunk for the Scottish Government because the GRA legislation specifically raised examples of exceptions where sex matters.

That implies a legal woman is a polite fiction.

However, misogyny being what it is, who knows? I thought the judges had mass peaking moments during the arguments but they have to take into account the dogs dinner that is the GRA.

It is possible that they will rule that based on how the current law is written the Haldane ruling is "right" but might comment that as the EHRC as said, that it is badly written and confusing and should be clarified by Parliament.

The downside being that Labour like it to be badly written and confusing and not clarify it, because, baldly, they like it favouring men and subordinating women, but in a foggy way that means they don't have to actually own it.

That will be the plus of a 'lose' - Labour's waffly burble that its all fine and it all works won't work any more if a court clearly states this is an unholy mess in law for women.

The problem I see with this is that as a woman you might be asking management to eject a TW from what should be a SSS. Management who then if the FWS decision goes against us would in theory need to ask the TW if they had a GRC, but would be unable to discuss with security, or complaining customers etc what the answer to that question was. In practice they won’t ask I bet. So self id by the back door. If you’ve followed the Peggie/Upton tribunal you may have seen no one asking the Dr outright (that I’ve seen) whether he has a GRC and it seems unlikely he has/had at the relevant date at least. I assume there’s a good reason why Peggie’s counsel is not doubling down on this point. I expect she’s keen to avoid a legal complaint by Upton who I’m sure would just love to bring one.

Management who then if the FWS decision goes against us would in theory need to ask the TW if they had a GRC, but would be unable to discuss with security, or complaining customers etc what the answer to that question was. In practice they won’t ask I bet.

This is the situation now. If the organisation or service provider has clearly said they are operating a women only service as provided for by the SSE, then they are entitled to clarify someone's status.

I think this is partly what the EHRC is saying. Organisations need to be clearly told (which Kemi Badenoch did) the excluding men with a GRC is legal if the need for a biological women only service is proportionate.

Organisations whether sports facilities, or rape crisis need to be bolder about saying that and if someone tries to falsely make use of a properly advertised SSE service, they are breaking the law.

That's the problem at the moment. That everyone, including RC and WA, let alone commercial providers, have been brain washed by Stonewall and the MSM.

There should be an agreed sign, and agreed message about what SSE means.

And anyone who tries to breach this legally accepted provision of service is liable to have the police called on them.

(Not that I want the Tories in power but) If KB was still MfW I can see her having the guts to issue guidancs like that.

Labour of course wont, even though they boast about how wonderful the SSE are, they will still prioritise the feelings of TW over helping to ensure the law they wrote to "protect womren" is enacted properly.

As said on other threads. On one level it isn't the law however badly written it is. It is the social contagion of a false narrative from Stonewall, the media, etc., that means many people dont even realise there are the SSE.

And where are Labour in all this? Silent? Wondering what to do or say?

And where are Labour in all this? Silent? Wondering what to do or say?

I'm no fan of Labour but for any political party to comment prior to the the judgement being released would be totally inappropriate.

That was the argument made when bringing in GRCs. However:

• as pointed out by PP, 1 person with a GRC can affect hundreds of others
• the ruling could incentivise more people to apply for them - especially bad actors who actively want to disrupt; the current process involves a long wait but really isn't difficult
• many politicians favour a faster, simpler process - making the above point an even larger problem.

Of course that's true, @IwantToRetire , but they haven't exactly put their best foot forward, have they?

Bear in mind there are big internal divisions inside Labour and our side has powerful voices. The Lord Chancellor for instance is gender critical. It is pretty clear Streeting is either peaked or peaking. A lot of the most ardent TAs are sidelined because they are far left.

Plus there are increasingly lots of reason to downplay the TA side as their fiction collapse.

A lot of others inside LABOUR want to avoid giving the Tories and Reform easy election points. It isn't that they are strongly pro women it is more they don't think the TA vote is worth much. Plus the medical science is swinging to making it look like there could be a huge medical scandal. There has been no big downsides over ignoring the TAs complaints about Cass. Plus they want to able to use knowing about biology as a weapon against the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens . See what Scottish Labour is upto.

They are desperate to keep the Muslim vote.

Plus there is keeping on Trump's good side.

a big chunk of Labour desperately want this issue to GO AWAY. So if FWS lose and there is a massive mess Labour will have to do something. Some will want to create a massive new fudge.

However the problem is the trend is in favour of reality. Don't think they are going to take the TA side completely. So for political reasons as well because of people who know about reality we can assume another side inside Labour will just want to marginalise the Trans stuff as much as possible. No-one sane wants to fight an election in 2028 about what a women is against Kemi and Farage.

So if FWS lose and there is a massive mess Labour will have to do something. Some will want to create a massive new fudge.

If FWS lose than Labour will be tremendously smug and say we always said our construction of the SSE was enough to ensure that women have "safe spaces".

And now the High Court has proved us right!