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'm seeing a lot of love for FWS on various platforms but for me, Elaine said it well -

'Yip. Three women, not lawyers or civil servants, who met on mumsnet, have taken @scotgov to the highest court in the land to force them to legislate within the parameters of reality. It’s quite incredible.' #WeKnowWhatAWomanIs

https://x.com/GussieGrips/status/1912237380024566160

Very interesting example from Stonewall (reported by the Guadian, if I've identified the typeface correctly) of permitted reasons for an exception.

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.

If it’s so easy why isn’t it happening in practice?

Feeling hopeful for the right decision tomorrow. We are edging closer to the end of this sorry chapter that will one day be consigned to history.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo.amp

"Amnesty International has said that since the Equality Act protects other minority groups, the case could be the "thin end of the wedge" which could undermine other rights."

Which other minority groups are claiming the protections the EA gives to a different group?

Whatever the decision, I think there will be some useful commentary. If the SC just formally say that no GRC = biological sex then that is a definitive statement that causes a big issue for all the “woman and anyone who identifies as a woman”provisions. It would reasonable to rewrite those provisions as “women oh and men too if they want”. We would able to push companies to officially state that changing rooms or services are mixed sex not single sex - that sounds a lot less “kind” and “inclusive” - forcing companies to describe what is really going on rather than wokewashing will be uncomfortable for them.

I expect that the SC will be less than complimentary of the god awful mess the legislation and the creative interpretation of that legislation has got us into.

Isn't it a sorry state if affairs when you have to pore over utterances from AI?

The BBC website this morning right at the top and quite helpful for once....
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

Sky News covering the case this morning, lawyer due on soon. Going to be an interesting day.

Good piece by Euan -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14615779/EUAN-McCOLM-Sturgeons-real-legacy-army-women-betrayed-political-leaders-took-matters-hands.html

(And no, I'm not doing the self flagellation for posting a Daily Mail link, I'm more likely to do that for a Guardian link nowadays tbh).

I wish the BBC hadn’t gone with that headline. Lucy HunterBlackburn on X yesterday pointed out:

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will not "decide what a woman is", any more than the Scopes monkey trial "decided" if evolution was true. It will however decide how far a 20-year old legal fiction makes a nonsense of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010.

Seatbelts fastened everyone…I have a sinking feeling but whatever happens this isn’t over

I didn’t know they met here! How brilliant this place is!

I think sense will prevail and want to offer my heartfelt thanks to FWS 🤞

I personally think it will be some kind of fudge, sent back to parliament to sort out.

Courage calls. 💜

Obviously Amnesty International are in that BBC article arguing AGAINST the interests of women 🙄

Remember if they don't win, they have created a quagmire that politicians can't ignore.

I also think it will be some kind of fudge sent back to Parliament to fix. I think this is a knot not even the Supreme Court can untie.

I can't see how Amnesty International can argue against it. What Transwoman can't do things that are closed to men who identify/are men?

Yep! They’re not ruling on whther it’s good or sensible law just what the law as it stands means

I expect they will find for the scottish government but point out that the law as it stands is an ass and urge the british government to sort it out

https://archive.ph/XvsJJ?s=09

"Whatever way the judgement falls its consequences will reverberate right across the world, and three extraordinary women will well and truly have cemented their right to be remembered alongside Scotland’s great feminists like Mary Burton, Elise Inglis, and Frances Wright."

Fantastic from Calum Steele at The Herald.

Single sex exceptions apply to all services and facilities. This is an easy process. One of the difficulties is that policy makers who decide for good reason to exclude or limit the access of transgender people who hold a GRC, often justify their decision by condemning gender ideology. This is perceived as hostility by people who subscribe to this type of thinking. There is no need to even mention it. A constructive, proportionate case can be made for single sex spaces, such as changing rooms for staff in NHS hospitals, without criticizing the beliefs of others. In response to another poster, local or national government funding always comes with restrictive conditions, usually linked to the latest fads and fashions in social policy. In the 1980s, when this type of funding became more common, there were debates in the charity sector about accepting government funding because of the limitations it imposes. Now government funding has become the norm. For anyone wanting to create single sex services, like Beira's Place in Edinburgh founded by JK Rowling, it is far better not to be captured by government funding. There are other ways to make money.

Mumsnet FWR also cementing it's place in the history books, I feel.