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

Hoping this won't be an establishment whitewash...

No chance of a gordian knot solution. Judges love untangling these issues but in this case, they are dealing with the impossible.

Whatever the outcome it will be interpretation of the law and not making of the law. Lets hope the complexities are stated and how solutions cannot be found without changes to the law.

Legislation can be challenged and I think, there is good reason why it might happen in this case - my best guess

Sex Matters on the judgement is a clear summary of possibilities:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/for-women-scotland-judgment-to-be-handed-down-next-week/

I can't see why if someone reports to management that there is a man in the Ladies loos, that when Security is sent to investigate they can't ask for proof of sex. We have no problem allowing shop assistants asking for proof of age when someone wants to buy alcohol, so why would it be different?

If sex is defined clearly and definitely NOT synonymous with gender that what value would a GRC have? Well, of course apart from their birth certificate has been changed - but they would have to stop allowing the change of birth certificates, or at least make them conditional on surgery taking place.

But at least it should deter a good many of the chancers, who really don't want to have their bits cut off.

But it won't, will it?

If the court case finds that men cannot be excluded from women's services even under the exemptions because the GRA has worked in ways that have been denied, whitewashed, lied about and wangled to the nth degree against women by unscrupulous GI political lobbies? Then it will prove that Labour are talking the hogwash we've said all along that they are. Women's spaces are a thing of the past, men get everything, women either accept the price of their public access to services is to be willing to take their clothes off with men or lose their access entirely, and women are subordinated in a law that does not allow them consent or safety or equality of consideration, and does not meet their needs equally to men. Labour have been arguing that it's all fine because women's exemptions mean they can have spaces that exclude men, (in theory, they mostly can't, but they could if they wanted to and tried hard enough and managed without funding and withstood appalling TRA attacks and harassment) while closing their eyes to the proof that this hasn't worked for women.

If the case goes against women, Labour will then either have to admit that they think that's women's place and men's place in society got right in the hierarchy and they're for this inequality, or that the law they've been lying about working for women doesn't in fact work and women were right all along that it doesn't work. Thats the part they will hate. I'd suspect they might prefer being able to say to the activist lobby 'yeah I know, phobic bastards, but it's the law, our hands are tied and we have to er, let women have equality. I know it sucks, what can you do?'

The issue they are all skirting around, and the big one to sort, will be that we all know, saying no to men doesn't go well, and men's poor behaviour works very well to get their own way over women.

In changing rooms and toilets, what poor member of staff wants to go and deal with a large, scary, shouty man demanding to go and inflict himself on non consenting women, particularly when he has beliefs that don't really jive with reality?

Also, the more that the category of “women” in law and policy is seen as not a biological reality, women is understood as “most women and some men”.

It’s rare that someone reports to management.

What is common is the toilet cubicle design changes then ‘it’s no longer a problem’. Out of sight out of mind.

People don’t follow the implications through to realise it’s now more of a problem, until it’s too late and they have experience of something going horribly wrong.

There have been no equality and impact assessments on making school toilet cubicles private and enclosed. For example, the DfE are now referring me to 1974 legislation instead of their own 2023 document. Tell that to schools, designers and toilet manufacturers who are following the DfE 2023 documents!

The worst is the government-commissioned report on public toilet design for people with long term health conditions that supported full height cubicles because transactivists favoured them. It’s there in black and white in the report. They didn’t even consider it would be a life or death design problem for those who they were suppose to be looking at in their remit. But then the company did get a Stonewall award that year. If you are focusing on a different characteristic rather than the one you are supposed to be looking at, then the equality and impact assessment report is flawed.

It’s wrong and leads to harm for everyone. Much of the harm is literally now ‘hidden’ and people are still unaware of how much goes on behind toilets doors, particularly to girls who don’t report.

This is what is happening now.

Quite.

If access to women and women's spaces becomes reliant on a £5 certificate, and a 'faster, easier process' then there'll just be an explosion of men getting a certificate.

The whole 'just a few, carefully vetted' thing was the GRA - it's been destruction tested. If it's one man at all then it's any man, and all men, and that puts men's choices and dominance over women's equality and access. And safety.

The woman being assaulted or driven out of a space or service really isn't affected in any way by what pieces of paper a man might or might not have. Her experience of the man is precisely the same either way.

The woman being assaulted or driven out of a space or service really isn't affected in any way by what pieces of paper a man might or might not have. Her experience of the man is precisely the same either way.

All parties pretty much acknowledged that during the Supreme Court hearing.

TRAs on Bluesky were not impressed by some of the legal arguments by the Scottish government team.

This is a good analysis by Michael Foran - apologies if it’s already been posted on this thread.

https://knowingius.org/p/sex-in-the-supreme-court-762

If the court case finds that men cannot be excluded from women's services even under the exemptions because the GRA has worked in ways that have been denied, whitewashed, lied about and wangled to the nth degree against women by unscrupulous GI political lobbies?

I posted about this earlier.

This isn't about the law, or Labour.

This is about social contagion amplified by captured universities and MSM.

So as I said previously, if KB was stil MfW she would continue what she started telling organisations their obligation under the law etc..

And on one level this has been so sucessful that changing the law wont make any difference because the more influential bloc in the UK is the trans lobby.

There needs to be much more public action about clarifying what the SSE are, and challenging organisations and businesses who dont want the aggro.

At the moment no one is doing this either at a Government level, local level or as a campaign.

NB The Court cant find that people with a GRC cant be excluded because the court has to follow the law as written. And that says that the SSE means someone with a GRC can be excluded.

No court would say because you cant stop people who drink from driving so we will change the law!

No one seems to be facing up to the fact that irrespective of the law the real problem is the much more amplified voice of TRAs, and (sorry to say) most of society including some women dont care about women's rights.

The campaign for women's sex based rights is virtually unknown to the majority of the population.

And unfortunately most people do not turn to FWR for their news on women's rights!

I think as usual Foran just doesn't grasp what has happened and is going on. It isn't about what happened in this case or that case it is about the fact that like it or not, in making sex the only protected charatcteristic in the EA to be open to have a different interpretation of the characteristic because the have a certificate has under mined the rights of those who are naturally that characteristic.

I think many people doubted that the approach of FWS using representation of women on boards would help clarify anything. As it just leads to the verbage of precedent etc.., rather that the fundamental problem of a conflict of rights.

The Haldane ruling, which was the first stage of this process, confirmed that because of the GRA giving some people a legal identity via a GRC ie a "legal woman" then this immediately meant that actual women had their rights impinged on.

The mere fact that the SSE were written indicates that those who accepted the concept of a certificate created "legal women" that on occassions (rather than always which indicates the biased of the writers of the law) actual women should be able to say that in certain circumstances (if proportionate) biological women should be the only group as users or providers of a service.

People from Black and Minority Communities are not told they have to accepted that someone got a certificate via a health based certificate should accept someone who is white is really Black because they think they are. Ditto anyone with a Disability being told that because someone identified as disabled and had a certificate based on their beliefs, should have to accept them as being disabled.

Let's just hope the Supreme Court Judges look at it on the basis of rights. Although on one level they cant reach the conclusion most of us would want which would mean them giving a Court ruling that the GRA impinges on the rights of other groups.

Just to repeat out problem with that in today's society any number of people might take to the streets on behalf of people from Black and other Minority Communities, or even on behalf of the disabled.

But wont for biological women.

Its not judges or even the law, it is the fact that society accepts and enforces the belief that women should know their place. And that isn't to assert they have rights equal to others. It is to give way and put everyone else first.

Sorry - have just seen the Sex Matters summary.

ie forget all the paragraphs I have just written, as this is it:

For Women Scotland’s position is that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 must be taken to have the common-law, biological meaning. Sex Matters and a coalition of three organisations representing the rights of lesbians – Scottish Lesbians, the Lesbian Project and LGB Alliance – intervened in support of this position.

ie amend the EA to say that in the act sex means always means biology. Then no need for the SSE.

But of course this would make the having a GRC pointless and as we know no way will society allow the most discriminated group in the world not get their way.

Sorry to post again but just to say have only just seen (or rather just registered) another significant point in Sex Matters useful summary.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC: the national equality watchdog) agreed with the Scottish government’s interpretation of the law, but emphasised the problems the law causes for the operation of the Equality Act. It said that Parliament should fix the problem by expressly disapplying the Gender Recognition Act from the Equality Act.

Did the EHRC really say disapply the GRA?!! Fantastic. This is the campaign we need. And after all the EHRC are set up to help apply equality legislation, so if they have or are saying this, lets get behind this as a campaign!!

Because:

The Scottish government wins but the Supreme Court takes the EHRC position. Its position was that as a matter of law, a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, but it would be better for human rights and for the comprehensibility and operation of the law if it didn’t. The Supreme Court might say that the two laws together create a terrible muddle that it falls to Parliament to fix.

So the EHRC are (now didn't used to be) Terfs! ie that the GRA's impact is against Human Rights ie Sex Based Rights.

(If anyone knows where the EHRC has said this can you post the link?)

And for those who thought I was being snide about Foran it is the difference between clever clever with the practice of law, and having an in principle belief in women's rights.

Worth remembering that the practice of the law in the UK is based on Boys Public School and their debating societies where saying something in a clever way is more important than integrity. Further entrenched by Oxbridge institutionalised versions of clever men, making nit picking points and the manner in which this is done wins applause. ie that if you are clever with words, this gives you more kudos than plain speaking about right and wrong.

New Campaign Slogan:

Human Rights Demand that the GRA is Not applied to the EA

The EHRC's written submission is here:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-intervention-women-scotland-supreme-court-appeal
and you can watch the sessions here:
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

That's great. Many thanks.

I know realise I did read it at the time, but somehow it got pushed to the back of my mind by all the length legal style arguements.

Again it is really well stated. And clearly tellling Parliament they have the responsibility to sort this out.

And to think it is not that many years ago that the EHRC had been totally transed.

So thanks to Baroness Falkner for all the work she has done towards rebalancing the EHRC. Such a shame she is only in post until 30 November 2025.

I found this a really useful overview.

Most of the other court cases and tribunals are relatively specific. This one gets to the root of it all and I find it terrifying.

Yes, because as the Sex Matters summary lays out this isn't about previous court cases setting precedents, and all the legal nuances.

It is about the fact that the UK Parliament created a law that effectively allows discrimination, lesser treatment of a group of people (biological females).

I am not sure that the Court can tell Parliament to rectify that.

Or whether under the HRA women could take Parliament to Court for failing to protect women's human rights!

I know you said (upthread?) that it's not about Labour, @IwantToRetire , but I still think it'll be a cold day in hell before a Labour govt repeal, or neuter, the GRA, much as Starmer must feel he can do without this, what with Trump tearing the world apart, Ukraine, etc etc. And even if Labour lose the next GE (not unlikely), well, the Tories had plenty of time to do something about it, as has been pointed out, and weren't in any rush back then, until the last minute.

Horrible thought: in the Looking Glass world we now inhabit, could a malign Farage even end up being a force for good?

I don't know about good. A force pulled in through desperation and disappointment by an electorate fed to the back teeth of establishment politicians, quite possibly.

@IwantToRetire this is a non sequitur.
"ie amend the EA to say that in the act sex means always means biology. Then no need for the SSE."
Even if sex in the act always means biology, we still need the Single Sex Exceptions, in order to be able to have female only services in the first place.

@TheOtherRaven ; I was thinking more of a scenario where a future Tory govt, hard-pressed on many fronts, could be chivvied into action by Farage, on whom they might be dependent for some support, in a populist measure that could earn him some easy brownie points with the public.

I may be over-thinking this!

To me, the SSE clause means that the originators of the law foresaw exactly this situation. Why else would they have had it included in the Act? They realised that bad actors would abuse it, to access women's spaces and services.

I think that what they didn't predict was the scale of the abuse of the law which would ensue.