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

they get a lot of angry feedback to it:
https://nitter.poast.org/DisRightsUK/status/1912494789259337870#r

Rumour is she cannot recall ever having commented on this matter and has nothing further to say. AT ALL.

I'd expect nothing else, but what I really want to know is what happens about all the women who've been harassed out of jobs because they weren't prepared to submit to the fashionable "rightthink"

Amusing, though, to watch the BBC, who've been gripped with this stupidity for years, tying themselves in knots

Frantically re-writing that section of her autobiography before it hits the printing press?

Me too! I’m so bloody proud of every single woman who has in any way stood up to this insidious ideology, every mother who has sought to protect their child from it, every sportswoman who has campaigned against the inclusion of men, and every woman on this platform who has informed us, commiserated with us, supported us and made us laugh at the madness, every penny that we’ve donated to all the crowdfunding campaigns has been worth it.

Being somewhat flippant, if the police were hunting down people who had stickers up saying woman = adult human female, will they be at Pride marches etc if there are banners saying TWAW, and people bullying Lesbians for their signs, since that is not legally correct? I suspect not.

Yes, she's confused, because she invented a new sex/gender category called "rapist" and doesn't understand why the Supreme Court haven't thanked her for her services to the law.

CheekySnake

Onus is on MCW, I'd have thought - you just say no. You use your eyes. Whether he produces a birth certificate or not is irrelevant. If you're not sure - he is the one who has to provide proof. Just like if you want to access age-related benefits, for example. The only way he'd have a claim for discrimination is if he was actually a woman. And he's not. I'm pretty sure that BCs have a date of issue on them and if the date is younger than the person presenting it then it's probably amended.

I'm pretty sure that BCs have a date of issue on them and if the date is younger than the person presenting it then it's probably amended.

I don't think that would work. A copy acquired for any reason would have a date later than the original - say because the original had been mislaid. It doesn't necessarily mean the sex record has been falsified.

True, mine was stolen in a burglary so when I applied for a student loan, the copy would have made me the world's brightest and largest 5 year old. The lady in the finance office, as you had to take stuff in in those days, could see i wasn't 5, but the sex marker wouldn't be quite as obvious if changed. It would be due to passing issues, but they wouldn't question it in the same way. I was happy to explain, a TP wouldn't be.

Hadn't thought of that! But later date combined with being obviously male...
In any case it would still be up to the person to prove that they were a woman.

Amusing, though, to watch the BBC, who've been gripped with this stupidity for years, tying themselves in knots

Well, given there are over 400 trans identified people working for the BBC, I'm guessing there are some frantic meetings about toilets. 😁

Yay. Maya in BBC News named MN.

I was at a meeting where she was handing out stickers on a roll, saying 'Radicalised by Mumsnet'

❤️

WTF is this:

"Solidarity with the trans community after this grim Supreme Court decision.

Fixation on biological markers of sex are disproven by Disabled bodies everyday - this decision will impact anyone with a body deemed outside of 'normal'. None of us are free until all of us are free!"

Interesting point.

Colin Wynter KC

Final point. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, its decision states what the law has always been, not what it should be from date of judgment onwards. This has implications for cases concluded, cases currently being fought, employers' trans access policies & lots more. Huge.

Yes, does that mean that if a ruling was found not in your favour because they were following the wrong advice, they actually broke the law?

I literally sent this exact message to a friend a couple of hours ago, it could get very interesting. I think a lot of HR depts are going to be working overtime to overhaul their policies. My own employer's trans and non-binary policy is against the law and apparently has always been. Could create a wave of new court cases and cause existing ones to be dropped.

In the interview with Michael Foran Helen Joyce has said each law which references sex may need to be taken to judicial review.

She explained sex matters has applied for a judicial review of the searches act which allows TW to strip search women.

The Supreme Court judgement will help enormously so we get more and more clarity.

Crikey! Could this open the gates for anyone to sue their employer, service provider etc if they complained about having to share with a trans person and been told the trans person has a right to be there?

Avid reader for many years of this board but first post here - firstly well done to everyone involved in bringing this case plus of course all the many supporters on MN and elsewhere - fantastic result and like many, I was in the "hoping for the best, preparing for the worst" mindset this morning.

Two questions if I may:

GB News Martin Daubney show has just had Dr Helen Webberley of GenderGP as a guest - she has been saying there has to stillbe very good reasons for a TW to not be allowed in a single sex environment for women - she referenced places such as rape crisis centres would be a good reason, but intimated most other environments it would still be acceptable. This seems to go against the ruling today? Is this the narrative those opposed to the decision today are going to take?

Secondly, NHS Fife - my concern is they may drop/offer a financial settlement again to Sandie Peggie - I can imagine they do not want Dr Upton stating anywhere in court again his words about biology, considering he is a doctor! But my concern is there were many mentions during the case before adjournment of Sandie not providing patient care or endangering patients when she supposedly left treating patients because Dr Upton was there - will NHS Fife drop one part but pursue, almost a vendetta?

Early days I know but it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

@schloss, in reply to your first question, Legal Feminist (who include Naomi Cunningham) posted the following on X, in response to someone saying you can still only exclude trans-identified men from women’s spaces “when necessary”:

No. Not "but only when necessary". This judgment means that for the purposes of the EqA, trans women are men, and may be excluded from any single-sex space for women simply because they are men.

It's word soup at best, but underlying might be the idea that you can identify out of disability.
I think disability can be framed differently and more positively, which can be helpful for one's mental state. And it is important to underline that it doesn't make people any lesser.
But the limitations that a disability brings with it are still there which is why it's important to keep campaigning for support to balance an impairment.

They might have thrown the reframing for psychological reasons and the understanding that a disability doesn't make you a lesser person and the magic TRA touch to make you a different being into one concept.
But even with that generous interpretation it's still offensive.

I believe so. Remember few trans women have a GRC not that would even help. The full implications of this remain to be seen. However the law is NOW very much in a woman's favour if they want to pursue legal action.

Note it will be a brave sports group that lets trans women take a women's place in sport now.

The FA and ECB should take note.

Many thanks for that - it seems pretty definitive in that statement, so one has to ask how Dr Webberley is stating a different understanding.