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

BelfastBard Does anyone have a link to the live stream? I can’t seem to find one on the UKSC website??

I'm also puzzled about that, as all I've seen distributed is a link to the case page https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042 but I have two theories: (1) that the live stream will appear there tomorrow and/or (2) that we will find it on the Supreme Court's youtube page https://www.youtube.com/@UKSupremeCourt . If anyone knows different please share!

It’s driving me bonkers! I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that “live” meant live and we’d be able to watch in real time…

We definitely are supposed to be able to watch in real time, and I did watch some of the actual hearings in real time. I'm pretty confident all will become clear tomorrow! There's another judgement to be handed down before the FWS one, so we can hopefully sort it out during that and be ready.

For example, see this extract from the guidance to the Act (my underline):

Gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act
(Schedule 3, paragraph 28 of the Equality Act 2010)

If you have met the conditions set out above and have established a separate or single-sex service, you should consider your approach to trans people’s use of the service. In considering your approach and when taking decisions you must meet the conditions set out under the gender reassignment provisions.
Under these provisions, your approach must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This will depend upon the nature of the service and may link to the reason the separate or single-sex service is needed. For example, a legitimate aim could be the privacy and dignity of others. You must then show that your action is a proportionate way to achieve that aim. This requires that you balance the impact upon all service users.
Example: a group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow trans women to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are likely to be traumatised by the presence of a person who is biologically male.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and#:~:text=A%20trans%20person%20can%20change,separately%20to%20each%20sex.

I emailed the court and they said the live stream only becomes available a few minutes before the judgement is handed down.
Ive asked for further clarification on what time this is likely to be.

Maybe that’s what’s needed. Call this phenomenon “woman-face”? Then it would be clear to all what the problem is. Naomi Cunningham talked about resisting the language to be able to make a clear case and maybe that’s a way to do that?

Side Development FWS just made the Scottish Greens in Holyrood look nasty and dumb again. An easy target but it needs doing.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5313420-scottish-greens-being-sexist-again?

Tweet by FWS -

'Our director, Trina Budge, wrote to Arianne Burgess MSP to ask for examples of "attacks" on trans people which she claimed occurred in the chamber at Holyrood. This was her reply.'

https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1911987122430759333

This is the kind of bullshit that FWS and any rational MSP are up against.

So 'attacks' = 'blasphemy'.

And nothing more.

I’ve just read this piece on the SC’s process of considering the arguments made, on both sides, which is a good breakdown of the process, what the SC may do, depending on which way the decision falls. It touches on statutory interpretation mostly (the piece is by an Edinburgh Uni Law Lecturer who teaches this to law students there) & even though I still haven’t a clue how to read ‘legalese’, I feel a wee bit more knowledge about how the SC will reach it’s decision.

https://x.com/scottwortley/status/1911899612400460232?s=46

I still haven’t a clue what the decision will be, but I feel a bit more prepared to follow the dry legal bits that will inevitably follow when the decision is handed down tomorrow.

Here’s a link direct to the article:

https://scott-wortley.medium.com/some-pre-decision-reflections-and-thoughts-on-the-interaction-between-the-gender-recognition-act-ab139dbbbbb9?source=social.tw

The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.

So that's where we've been going wrong. Too much boggling.

Thanks for linking directly to the article as the tweet no longer exists.

I am all in favour of this approach. Blokes dressing up as women to access female single sex spaces should be recognised as just as offensive as blacking up & speaking in a fake Indian or Jamaican accent. In some ways it's even worse as simply by blacking up you don't remove the rights of ethnic minorities whereas males encroaching on femals SSS do remove female rights.

Actually it does exist, but I had to hunt for it as the original link address had somehow been corrupted in copying:

https://x.com/Scott_Wortley/status/1911899612400460232

The Supreme Court will only interpret the law as it stands. This is the final appeal. Two previous hearings in Scotland's Inner Court found that 'sex' in the EqA includes women, men and transgender people who hold a gender recognition certificate. That said, it is perfectly legal, and easy, to provide single sex services and facilities that limit the access or exclude people with certificated sex. The conditions to be met are not onerous. There is no requirement to explain, defend or justify this policy choice within the context of the latest manifestation of gender theory. Equally, if there is no rational, sensible reason to exclude people with certificated sex, then it would be unfair to do so. We are all required to balance the rights of everyone fairly. This is not some existential fight to the death. We know policy makers across the board are making a mess of navigating their way safely through the equality ecosystem but this is down to incompetence, ignorance and a lack of critical thinking rather than a conspiracy to replace sex with gender ID. No-one needs permission to provide single sex facilities or activities if there is a good reason to do so.

Yes, but, RendallPorter, places are threatened with defunding if they do not comply with directives to be trans inclusive, made by captured government officials promoting gender ideology. And rats are nailed to doors, members of staff doxxed and threatened with death and rape threats, so it’s not easy to say no.

That's Labour's line isn't it? It all sounds so nice.

We balance everything.
Fairly.
For all.
Women can have single sex spaces as wanted and needed.

Meanwhile back in reality....

Gosh if this was working what on earth are all these cross women who have lost their jobs and been raped all about? And what are all these court cases for? Is everyone just being a bit silly?

TheOtherRaven - I wonder about a judge's reaction to someone requiring to present in costume or character within a court proceding: like workplaces there are dress codes and appropriate boundaries.

I just thought I would put this here - Solicitor-advocate hits back at judge’s ‘Harry Potter’ criticism | News | Law Gazette

😁

@RendallPorter the thing is, we've all got certificated sex. All of us. It's there on our birth certificate, which then acts as proof of sex based on a genital inspection that takes place immediately after birth.

I know that legally (in theory) people pretending to be the opposite sex can be excluded from opposite sex spaces, but where I'm struggling now is how we prove that someone isn't the sex they and their paperwork are claiming if they have a reissued birth cert with a false sex marker on it. There has to be some tangible proof of sex, but what is it for someone with a GRC?

If the Scottish gov win then any female with a GRC stating they are male is no longer covered by the abortion act. Not sure about maternity and pregnancy rights - will depend on whether the law states 'pregnant woman' I think. The abortion act very clearly references women not pregnant people so a pregnant transman is not covered. So that'll be interesting

@RendallPorter

This appeal is not about those situations where a transwoman can legally be excluded from a women-only space if it's for a good reason, in the balancing act you refer to.

It's about areas of law where transwomen must be treated as women at all times, without exception, because the GRC makes them legally female.

The specific situation triggering the case was about female representation on public boards, but clubs and associations are also affected.

Is there a way to attend the ruling in person?

@KnottyAutyyes you can attend the Supreme Court tomorrow- best get there by 9sh. I would like to be there (attended the two day hearing) but am away unfortunately!

I've got a meeting first thing but will be looking out for updates here.

Thread from Maya:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1912128538527809546.html?utm_campaign=topunroll