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

I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth posting again. Legal Feminist (a group that includes Naomi Cunningham) on X, and in response to that Harriet Harmon quote, say:

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.

They are. They couldn’t exist without it. It’s the exception written into the legislation which permits all single sex spaces which would otherwise be illegal discrimination under the Act.

It suggests that TW are separate from other men. Single sex spaces can exclude MEN when necessary. There is no separate test for excluding TW, no higher bar to be met.

There are sections in the judgement worth reading to check this.

But it seems fairly clear about if a space/service has been provided for women, separately to men, then it was a needed single sex space for privacy, decency and all the rest of it.

It cannot then be something that some men can use but not others. A certificate is pointless as you can't ask to see it anyway, and it is ridiculous to ask women to predicate their response to a man in a space where a man should not be, based on whether or not he owns a piece of paper.

Ah, thank you.

So is this expressing that the "proportionate means to a legitimate aim" bit cuts in at the point when a space is designated a single-sex space?

And that if it doesn't represent a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, then you can't use the term single-sex space in the first place?

(So eg a leisure centre can't designate itself for men-only unless it can pass the proportionate means to a legitimate aim?)

Sorry, x-posted with lots of people answering that.

The 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim' is leveraged like 'case by case'.

If male and female toilets have been provided, then it was deemed a legitimate aim to provide women with a man-free space.

If a lesbian group was set up (discussed in the judgement with specifics on lesbian being homosexual woman) then it was deemed a legitimate aim to have a group that was just for homosexual women.

There are no men who are legal exceptions to that.

Groups and services and spaces that work for all is obviously necessary, but this is likely going to mean more mixed sex and gender neutral additional spaces in addition to sex based.

With clarity about 'woman' meaning 'biological sex', women no longer have to stand around arguing in detail about whether they can satisfy men on having sufficient good reason to say no to this particular man on this particular occasion. If it's a space for women, then no men are exceptions.

Spectator articles.
https://archive.ph/C54jV
https://archive.ph/krU5x
https://archive.ph/hMgMt
https://archive.ph/dqhlL
https://archive.ph/udf3m

But it seems fairly clear about if a space/service has been provided for women, separately to men, then it was a needed single sex space for privacy, decency and all the rest of it.

Sadly the converse is definitely not true, certainly historically. Single-sex spaces for men were the default. Then there was sometimes a supposedly equivalent – but not really – space for "the ladies, bless 'em".

I'm just being a bit careful about this because I really don't want to inadvertently make it easier to recreate spaces from which women are banned from for spurious reasons. Especially decision-making spaces.

To quote an AS Byatt character from memory: "All the important decisions were made in the pub, to which I was not invited." Sums up the situation of my younger days all too well.

Groups and services and spaces that work for all is obviously necessary, but this is likely going to mean more mixed sex and gender neutral additional spaces in addition to sex based.

And that's fine as long as single sex spaces are provided. The trans community don't want mixed sex or trans only spaces though, because the vast majority of men who believe they are women get a sexual thrill from being perceived as women. This judgment has spoiled their fun. They will carry on using women's spaces and they will cry about it on social media when they are told to leave.

But we can now tell them to leave our spaces.

I think it's going to make prisons, hospitals and court rooms much better for women though. Hopefully starting with Sandie Peggie.

Once again thank you for posting the clarification from Legal Feminist - I think what is interesting is there have already been a very similar set of words on 2 different outlets. This probably provides an insight into the direction the pro TWAW narrative is going to take - say the same thing over and over again, many people then believe it is correct.

I love these articles, and the emphasis on women rather than on trans people. "It started with the Scottish government trying to take something away from women."

I think the upshot may be that both women-only and trans-inclusive things are permitted but you're not allowed to call the latter as if it were the former. And if sex-segregation is mandated by law (eg regs about prisons, workplace changing rooms, and school toilets) then it can't be trans-inclusive (extrapolating a bit here). The guidance about trans-exclusion needing a legitimate purpose can be binned. But TRAs will still try to find a way in based on them being disadvantaged relative to everyone else. Stickers for the gents? 'Transwomen welcome here!'

Oh maybe I've been reading both Legal Feminist and Harriet Harman differently from others.

I assumed that any references to "case by case" or "where necessary" referred to the service/space being provided and was blanket on all male people.

It's just dawned on me maybe other folk are reading these as case by case on individual males.

Yeah. No!

Violently agree that once a space is legitimately designated single-sex, then single sex it is (no certificated sex here, please).

And that's what I thought the judge had effectively said, so I'm glad that's correct.

Which is why I will keep repeating the clarification - because the more people who hear that, the more we can push back against the incorrect interpretation.

There'll be weeks and weeks of analysis and jubilation and whining, and the promised new guidance from the EHRC. It's so exciting.

It can't be trans-inclusive

No-one is excluding trans people. They just have to use the facilities for their natal sex. Women's single sex spaces are still available for women who identify as men - "transmen".

And we may want to ask MN if they will change their guidance from 2018 that says those of us who use phrases saying biological people identify as not the same as their biology can lead to suspension and ban. Apparently those terms are considered to be a slur, despite being truthful, legal, and protected under Forstater. Sorry for being obtuse but I don't want to be suspended.

Oh yeah, the case-by-case referring to the individual trans person is a very TRA argument, as all of us who have been involved in the NHS single sex spaces audit can tell you.

There was a neat explanation (I think from Legal Feminist again) about how case-by-case = individual simply cannot work. I’ll see if I can find it.

Here you go:

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/06/sex-peanuts-and-statutory-interpretation/

(on the audit thread we call this the “may contain nuts” argument…)

Thanks. Another of those, "It shouldn't need saying... ," but alas it does.

But, not any more.

Thank you to FWS, and everyone who has supported them. It's been a monumental day.

It has. This has really moved me today.

This.

Thank you so much.

Here's to women! ❤