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

As recently as the 90s, people got sacked from the civil service for transitioning.

Are there any cases on record, or is this just your opinion? Were such people sacked for other unacceptable behaviours?

After all, in the Sandie Peggie case, Upton has made a claim against Sandie Peggie for 'misgendering him' but in fact she has declared quite rightly that legally he is a man.

I read about it in Christine Burns's 'Trans Britain', which I had from the library. One of the contributors claimed to have had employment terminated when began hormone treatment, and I had no reason to disbelieve.

Not aiming to proselytise for trans anti-discrimination law, but trying to elucidate why TRAs in the 90s thought they needed it.

Not aiming to proselytise for trans anti-discrimination law, but trying to elucidate why TRAs in the 90s thought they needed it.

So not an impartial source then.

How many of these Men insisting that they are women are crying that they are being discriminated against because they are TransWomen but in fact as in the Peggie case, and others their "gender" doesn't come into it, but they are men in the wrong place? The wrong place being women's changing rooms, women's toilets, women's sports. And as soon as someone says, "You're a man." the cry "Transphobe, bigot." goes up with blatant denial of biology.

This is not to say that homosexuals in the past were not discriminated against because they most certainly were and in some cases were imprisoned for this.

Yes, it could have been misinformation that TRAs themselves believed, or the discrimination was real, but no longer happens today. I don't think we'll make much headway getting this aspect of the Act rescinded though, because anti-discrimination measures are perceived - rightly or wrongly - as axiomatically good.

The point is that without SSEs you can’t advertise a service or toilets for women.

The point is, is that if the EA is amended to say the word sex means biology then the word women means biological female as it always did in the past.

So if something is advertised as women only, then it is only for biological women.

The concept that a GRC makes someone a "legal woman" would no longer be valid. Because a GRC is about what someone thinks in their head. Not about an actual fact.

Without the SSE, the rest of the Act would make it “unlawful discrimination” to have single sex provision.

But it wouldn't be "discrimination" because the service would only be relevant to someone who biologicaly female. Once the word sex is defined in law as meaning biology then a service which is only relevant to women is not discriminatory.

There are maybe occassion when say a training course that could be done by either men or women might be women only. But then we have single sex schools. And somewhere on the EHRC there is an explanation of where that is allowable.

As opposed say to a job being advertised but effectively is not open to women. That would be discrimination, unless of course like support workers in a rape crisis centre the job could only be carrried out by a man (ie if men stopped moaning about lack of provision for men and started setting up their own rape crisis or DV services).

Thanks very well put.

What I tried to say in many paragraphs you have summarised perfectly!

No this would no longer apply if (and its a big if) the court ruling is that sex means biology.

That was the point of my posts.

As has been said before, the SSE were written because Labour realised that in creating the fabrication that a GRC made someone a legal woman, would no longer apply, because woman is about the female sex.

Totally.

Again summarise really well. (Although I think I did make mention of it in my waffle.)

Services would be advertised by sex. And those who didn't want to use this, could advertise by gender.

It would be all about reclaiming the words.

Sorry for blitzing the thread but been busy all day and haven't done my shopping so need to get out quickly.

re how did it happen that the GRA was allowed to create in law discrimination against women in the EA?!! See Sex Matters summary of the EA is now 15. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5311191-the-equality-act-15-years-old-today-sex-matters-article

And as said up thread the EHRC have nailed it:

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.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313093-human-rights-demand-that-the-gra-is-not-applied-to-the-ea-ehrc

No, this is wrong.
The SSE is what makes women-only rape counselling services legal, despite it constituting sex discrimination against male rape victims. Without the SSE, no single-sex facilities or services would be legal.

As said above, the SSE predate the GRA, so cannot have been introduced in response to it.

What if the law stated that 'sex' and 'gender' mean exactly the same thing, i.e. the biological sex you were born into, there'd be no more swearing at forms that asked what your 'gender' is, because it would just mean are you male or female; and gender would be as impossible to change as sex is, so the concept of 'transgender' would become sort of ....nebulous..

There's no convicing legal definition of 'gender' anyway - this is the definition used in the GRA, which is a very waffly foundation to base a very significant and far-reaching law on:
Gender: Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender refers to socially constructed characteristics, and is often assumed from the sex people are registered as at birth.
GRA Consultation document

Just caught this article in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/JrMwO

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/04/12/womens-rights-first-in-equality-law-revamp/

This bit concerns me

It also permits organisations to routinely ask for a Gender Recognition Certificate from trans individuals seeking access to single sex spaces.

I don't care if a bloke has a scrap of paper claiming he is something he's not. He should not use women's spaces. This seems to suggest he would legally be able to.

Totally agree. It’s not about the piece of paper. Single sex must mean single sex full stop.

No, for the umpteenth time, the single sex exceptions exist to make single sex services possible. Without them, insisting that a service was single sex would be unlawful sex discrimination, so they would still be required even if the concept of trans people did not exist. You're conflating the provisions within the single sex exceptions that allow for gender reassignment discrimination if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, with the single sex exceptions as a whole.

No, they weren’t. They are about exceptions to sex discrimination, not just trans people.

[Harry Hill hovers in the background...]

I didn't think there were any laughs to be had in this debate but you proved me very wrong moto748e😂😂

John Swinney urged to revive self-ID law if gender critical group wins case

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9f253df2-99ee-4b2f-87a1-3b30c584cc98?shareToken=247a0c77517bbb397a060c3cad771a301

Sorry. This is even more absurd.

I think many people genuinely have totally forgotten the Equality Act is an anti-discrimination act.

Maybe that's because it's too old-fashioned - maybe there is a serious point that many regard something which the authors intended as an anti-discrimination act as an "official list of valid identities". And the point of valid identities is what special treatment you give them - so a long way from anti-discrimination.

Maybe the phenomenon Helen Joyce has called out of every institution starting to do the opposite of it's original aim.

There are maybe occassion when say a training course that could be done by either men or women might be women only. But then we have single sex schools. And somewhere on the EHRC there is an explanation of where that is allowable.

Okay, this did make me laugh out loud. Let's say we can agree that the EA is an anti-discrimination act, and bars sex discrimination. And that it might have such text. What would you call that explanation, IWTR? I know what everyone else on this thread is calling it. What about you?

if FWS win the case, then it doesn’t matter too much if the Scottish government resurrects self-id, because the Equality Act’s single-sex exceptions won’t apply to people with a GRC.

On the contrary, it matters immensely.

the self ID bill wasn't to allow people to use single sex services on the basis of self ID. It was to allow people to get a GRC on the basis of self ID. No doctor's letter, no panel, no evidence of 'living in the acquired gender'; just nip into the GRC office and buy your £5 lady ticket over the counter.

You can't have a men-only bar, or a women-only train, or a men-only construction site because those things would be discriminatory on the basis of sex.

You can... if you can demonstrate it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

So potentially, a men-only bar for same-sex attracted might meet this criteria e.g. there might be enough gay men feeling fed up that straight females are identifying as gay men and are insisting on accessing gay men's social spaces.

Likewise, a women-only train (carriage) might meet the criteria on safety grounds, if there is data to suggest that mixed-sex carriages are a risk.

Equally, they might not. It's about demonstrating why it's legitimate to discriminate on the basis of sex. In some cases it's much easier to demonstrate why it's needed e.g. male and female sports categories. IIRC discrimination on the basis of sex for sport is specifically mentioned in the EA. Perhaps because it's one of the easiest legitimate reasons to articulate.

Without the SSE, it would be impossible to have any single sex spaces, services and associations (except sport, because it is specifically mentioned).

As PPs have said, the SSE is needed. What's at stake here is whether a GRC allows someone to "be" the opposite sex under the SSE.

@IwantToRetire do you agree that it should remain lawful to discriminate on the basis of sex, where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - e.g. having changing rooms separated by sex for the purposes of dignity and safety? If so, this means you support the SSE....

I really can’t belive that we are here.

no one can change sex. It really shouldn’t be this hard to maintain reality in law.

im worried about Wednesday.