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

OK, yes - fair point.

https://archive.ph/zWnSC

You'd think Maugham would know better by now.

'this ban is being challenged in the courts by the Good Law Project, led by Maugham, who wrote on social media that the measure would “kill trans children”.
In his review, Appleby criticised the toxicity of the debate on social media. He said: “The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide. One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers — some of the responses on social media show this.'

Well said @PepeParapluie

I have just danced around the living room to this...

"Fight till they flee,
We will not bend the knee.
The spirit of the Mighty
Will rise to Victory"

There is wine, sunshine and tears.

I’ve gone all out tonight & got my favourite takeaway & a full fat bottle of coke to accompany my tipple of choice. I rarely buy full fat coke but I think todays events call for being a tad more extravagant than usual 😁

HERE'S TAE US; WHA'S LIKE US? GEY FEW, AND THEY'RE A' DEID' 🥂

I put GB news on because our old friend Lloyd Russell-Moyle was on. He is still fucking bonkers, but seems to be moving to a more reflective position today, saying we should never have conflated sex and gender, and that he was going to think more about his position in light of the Supreme Court judgement. He still wanged on about how we need more clarity, vulnerabile trans women, blah blah, but nowhere near as extreme as his previous position.

Wild times.

Very good point about being able to find ‘many people’ who agree or disagree with pretty much anything.

It seems like an empty way to try and shut someone down to me - I don’t have an actual response to your point but ‘people disagree with you’. Not saying which people, or how or why they would disagree - that’s too difficult, you’d actually have to formulate an argument.

My favourite "many people may disagree with you" is when Fiona Bruce's said this to Prof Robert Winston on QT when he said that humans can't change sex

Maybe the percentage of the genpop identifying as trans, and the percentage of the university-educated BBC intake material identifying as trans, are two different things?

Well, it couldn't possibly be institutional bias, now could it?

I'll have to try to find some video of that one - sounds like a doooozy

Sometimes, when phrases like these suddenly start to be used regularly, I wonder if it is just that they all listen to each other's broadcasts or that they have all been to the same lecture

I can't express how happy this is all making me!

Prof Winston on QT

Let me complete that for you

There are people who would vehemently disagree with you .. but they are extremely ill informed

Once again, it's funny, but it's not.

from the Janice Turner article above.

But the Scottish government also decreed that a biological man considering himself a woman should be accepted as a woman for these purposes. In theory, then, an all-male board could be pleasingly gender-balanced if half the biological men on it possessed a gender recognition certificate

Don't ever tell me that misogyny is not at the heart of this ideology

A bankruptcy of ferrets

That Harriet Harman post was an image, so here it is in text:
"The Supreme Court ruling correctly interprets the Equality Act, giving effect to our intention when drafting it. Single sex spaces for women are important & can exclude trans women but only where necessary. The Act, & ruling, protects rights of women while also respecting the rights of trans women."

Sorry, I don't understand where that's incorrect?

I thought the last sentence is pretty much exactly what the judge said? And the previous sentence is what the Equality Act says re a proportionate means to a legitimate end. And the problem has hinged on who is being referred to when the Equality Act uses the word "woman" – which is the thing which has been so resoundingly clarified today.

Have I horribly misunderstood the judge's words?

<headdesk>

Single sex spaces wouldn’t be single sex if it wasn’t “necessary”. They don’t have other rights to access women’s spaces that other men don’t have. That’s why she’s being called out as slippery and disingenuous.

Bloody YES! Well done women!

Single sex spaces are already using SSEs. This ruling clarifies that “trans women” with GRCs are to be treated as men in that respect.

The proportionate and legitimate test is already passed by creating a single sex space in the first place. It is perfectly ok to exclude all men, including those who claim to be women.

The Spectator is going whole hog on this. I think the IPSO judgement against them recently, where they were admonished for an article that called a tw something like 'a male who claims to be a woman', is still smarting. The Supreme Court seems to agree with the Spectator.

Oh good, that's what my understanding was too about the ruling.

I think not all "single sex spaces" were using the Single Sex Exemption, which is why this ruling was needed.