What is a woman?

[bobzmyunkle]

Excellent
We now have two rinse and repeat threads instead of the one.

Maybe get GC on one and Trans women are women on the other.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Maybe get GC on one and Trans women are women on the other.

Oh, we'll need another for @CXRAndy.

 

[spen666]

I am not ''hysterical'', and not ''ranting'', you prove my point again. You resort to this hyperbole in order to belittle. You attempt to bully and bluff as if you are some kind of expert. Instead you could try a reasoned argument, but as you point out yourself, you offer no opinions. I must assume that you don't have the talent for it.

I have read and considered all 88 pages of the SC judgement. Have you?

I have pointed out that the European Court of Justice had already considered a comparable case, the Goodwin case previously and effectively overturned the Supreme Court judgement based on the same circumstances and facts. If the SC were incorrect once they could be incorrect for a second time.

That is all I need to know in order to know that the Supreme Court not only did not only accord in its interpretation with what parliament must have intended. Melanie Field, the lead author of the act had previously expressed her knowledge to a Select Committee. The all party select committee seemed satisfied with her response. On this question of sex the intention of parliament was known.

The Supreme Court have considered in their judgement earlier advice, which to paraphrase says that legislation is better if the definition of a word is constant throughout an act. They have given priority to the meaning of words in the ''ordinary sense'' rather than legal interpretation from legal precedent.

There was no prior definition of ''woman'' given in statute. Despite this lack of a definition, the SC decided that sex must have the same meaning within the two protected characteristics of sex and pregnancy & maternity with neither giving a definition of sex. They decided that this 'best advice' was that the Equality Act could only mean a woman in the ordinary sense.

If they had considered the meaning of ''woman'' in the ordinary sense, they had the opportunity to notice that in the consideration of marriage, there is a centuries old history of woman in the ''ordinary sense''. That had, until 2013, only been considered that marriage was available to one man and one woman (setting aside the statutory exclusions).

One effect of the GRA is that a trans woman with a GRC may only marry a man, while a trans man may only marry a woman.

From 2013 if a trans woman is to marry another woman (be they cis or trans) then marriage would be on the basis of same sex.

What this long history confers is that people before the law, people have always been the sex as stated on their birth certificate.

This long history of ordinary meaning, and of meaning in statute and common law has that common thread.

The Supreme Court's adherence to ''best advice'' on interpreting law has been given precedence over many centuries and legal precedence that people are the sex stated on their birth certificate.

The effect is that none of us now have a document that reliably in nearly all cases means that people, meaning none of us, are necessarily the sex stated on our birth certificate, and may need to submit to medical examination to prove we are who we believe we are.

Please at least try to reply appropriately.

And another rant all because it seems you don't like the fact that the most experienced judges in the country have made a detailed judgement that you as a much less legally experienced person disagrees with.

The Supreme Court do not adhere to "best advice" and if you believe this, you have a fundamental misconception of our constitution.

 

[monkers]

And another rant all because it seems you don't like the fact that the most experienced judges in the country have made a detailed judgement that you as a much less legally experienced person disagrees with.

The Supreme Court do not adhere to "best advice" and if you believe this, you have a fundamental misconception of our constitution.

Oh heeeeelp, a gummy man tried to bite me.

I'm not ranting Hector. I'm perfectly calm.

You know this is a forum right,? This is a place where members come to express ideas and opinions - that's what it's for.

That the Supreme Court considered this all before, and got it wrong is not even an opinion, it's a fact.

You can put all of your faith in their judgement without so much as reading it if you like - that's you prerogative. But if you try to Hector me into not having an opinion on your say so, you can expect short shrift.

You were invited by me to have a reasoned discussion, only you didn't have the goods did you? You couldn't deliver. I just see you as pathetic. I don't need to shout it. I'll continue to state facts on the forum. Unlike you I'm not afraid to have an opinion.

Victoria McCloud believes that the SC have it wrong again, and is taking it back to the ECtHR.

She's not the useless, toothless, spineless person that you seem to be. You can read about her here ...

https://wlegal.co.uk/our-people/victoria-mccloud/

Perhaps you'd like to message her and tell her she must be wrong too?

Toodlepip Hector.

 

[spen666]

...

That the Supreme Court considered this all before, and got it wrong is not even an opinion, it's a fact.

Ok then, you will be able to provide us with details of this case where the Supreme Court have considered the meaning of the word woman and got it wrong.


if of course there has been such a case. It will be easy for you to provide details of the case.

You can put all of your faith in their judgement without so much as reading it if you like - that's you prerogative. But if you try to Hector me into not having an opinion on your say so, you can expect short shrift.

Who is Hector? Are they a trans person? What is the relevance of Hector & what is Hector's opinion on this topic

You were invited by me to have a reasoned discussion, only you didn't have the goods did you? You couldn't deliver. I just see you as pathetic. I don't need to shout it. I'll continue to state facts on the forum. Unlike you I'm not afraid to have an opinion.

I have given you repeatedly readon why the Supreme Court judgement is the determination in the UK of what the law is.

You choose not to even attempt to engage, claiming earlier that by paragraph 2 of the judgement the Supreme Court didn't do what it set out to do. Despite thefsct that over 88 pages, the Supreme Court set out a very thorough and forensic analysis of the law.

Victoria McCloud believes that the SC have it wrong again, and is taking it back to the ECtHR.

Victoria McCloud is not the person who decides the interpretation of the law. She is one individual like you or I and her view does not over rule the Supreme Court.



Oh and she is not taking the case to the ECHR, she is considering doing so. There is a huge difference.


At present the legal position is clear and settled and the Judgement of the Supreme Court has settled the law, whether you like this or not, it is the legal position.

She's not the useless, toothless, spineless person that you seem to be. You can read about her here ...

https://wlegal.co.uk/our-people/victoria-mccloud/

Perhaps you'd like to message her and tell her she must be wrong too?

Toodlepip Hector.

Ooh look, insults and abuse because someone dares to say different to you.


The hilarious bit is I have not expressed a view on whether I agree or disagwith the judgement, merely said correctly the Supreme Court judgement under our constitution has determined what the law is

 

[monkers]

Ok then, you will be able to provide us with details of this case where the Supreme Court have considered the meaning of the word woman and got it wrong.


if of course there has been such a case. It will be easy for you to provide details of the case.


Who is Hector? Are they a trans person? What is the relevance of Hector & what is Hector's opinion on this topic


I have given you repeatedly readon why the Supreme Court judgement is the determination in the UK of what the law is.

You choose not to even attempt to engage, claiming earlier that by paragraph 2 of the judgement the Supreme Court didn't do what it set out to do. Despite thefsct that over 88 pages, the Supreme Court set out a very thorough and forensic analysis of the law.


Victoria McCloud is not the person who decides the interpretation of the law. She is one individual like you or I and her view does not over rule the Supreme Court.



Oh and she is not taking the case to the ECHR, she is considering doing so. There is a huge difference.


At present the legal position is clear and settled and the Judgement of the Supreme Court has settled the law, whether you like this or not, it is the legal position.



Ooh look, insults and abuse because someone dares to say different to you.


The hilarious bit is I have not expressed a view on whether I agree or disagwith the judgement, merely said correctly the Supreme Court judgement under our constitution has determined what the law is

Oh help I've been savaged by Hector the gummy man again.

The GRA made state recognition of a person's gender identity, at the same time it provided an amended birth certificate to ensure the constituent parts of their identity were made congruent. It did so because people, even trans people, have convention rights.

The Supreme Court have now created a legal absurdity, that trans people are one sex for except for the purposes of the act that protects them from discrimination.

Freedom from discrimination is a convention right. The Supreme Court is required to consider convention rights under Article 14 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 in their judgement. Where they find incompatibility between statute and convention rights, they are required in law to issue a notice of incompatibility. They haven't.

They are also required to consider legal precedent. The legal precedent is that people are the sex stated on their birth certificate - until now that is.

In reaching a balanced judgement in the face of competing human rights, they are required to hear the competing views from both sides - they heard from four separate anti-trans rights campaign groups, but disallowed trans representation. They neglected to consider expert witness - Melanie Field - the lead writer of the Equality Act who is on the record about what the legislation intended and how she helped guide it through parliament.

So what parliament intended was already known. A firm legal precedent was set. The convention rights of trans people was already tested at the ECtHR. The GRA made parliament's intentions clear - it provided that trans women are women ''for all purposes'' save for a list of exceptions. Removing their convention rights to free from discrimination was not in the list - funny that.

It's going back to the European Court of Human Rights who had previously heard the Christine Goodwin case that resulted in a directive being placed on the government to provide effective remedy. The GRA resulted.

Be honest, you liked the outcome of the SC for personal reasons. You thought you could silence me with your bluster.

Sit down Hector, you have nothing.

Addendum: Reports say that Victoria McCloud is not just ''considering'',

The BBC (for example) reports ...

Dr McCloud says she and other campaigners will go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to seek a declaration that the actions of the UK government and Supreme Court judgement "violate [her] fundamental human rights".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo

 

[CXRAndy]

 

[monkers]

For the benefit of other readers here, the Supreme Court record, despite Hector's reassurance that they tend to get things right, is highly questionable.

I asked co-pilot to run the numbers of cases taken to the ECtHR after being heard in the Supreme Court.

This was the reply ...

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dealt with numerous cases involving the UK since its inception. As of the end of 2021, there have been 563 judgments concerning the UK. Out of these, 327 judgments found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, while 144 judgments found no violation.

I wouldn't call that an impressive record on finding decisions in favour of convention rights.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In reaching a balanced judgement in the face of competing human rights, they are required to hear the competing views from both sides - they heard from four separate anti-trans rights campaign groups, but disallowed trans representation.

They heard both sides. The Scottish government's case was supporters by 2 interveners. For Women Scotland had 2 also. Individuals were not allowed to submit evidence. Courts have never been obliged to admit evidence from every single person or group who wished to contribute.

They neglected to consider expert witness - Melanie Field - the lead writer of the Equality Act who is on the record about what the legislation intended and how she helped guide it through parliament.

The court isn't obliged to take in to account any public figure's views as given in opinion pieces or news articles, hers or anyone else's. That isn't how the court makes its decisions. It would be crazy if it did.

You have hundreds of posts claiming expertise on what the law is then when the law is clarified suddenly the law is wrong.

Being obnoxious to other posters doesn't help your case. You do it to deter others from posting because tantrums and sour grapes are all you have left. It makes you look ridiculous.

The Good Law project can get more cash out of the public to fund their attempt if they wish. Until then the law is what it is, as you have so often said on here 'whether you like it or not'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Former judge, trans identifying sour grapes enthusiast Victoria McCourt on the Supreme Court before the verdict:

When the pure and straightforward matter of statutory reading wasn't the one McCloud demanded, suddenly those expert legal minds aren't so able and mature after all.


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...landmark-supreme-court-case-definition-woman/

 

[monkers]

@spen666

N here (niece of @monkers)

On the parallel thread (Gender Again: Sorry) I introduced myself and availed myself to answer questions.

Rather than watching this unseemly squabble prevail, I will set out my thoughts as if this I was initiating an argument to present before a court.

Monkers is quite properly setting out the case that the case that Dr Victoria McCloud seeks to advance to the ECHR will rely upon proven violation of one or more fundamental (convention) rights. It is possible that I may have some involvement in that case, even if only be way of an informal office discussion, so I will recluse myself from further comment.

Restricting myself to a legal critique of the Supreme Court decision, I'll set out below one argument that suggests that the Supreme Court could have reached an alternative decision.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) established gender identity as a characteristic to be legally recognised, allowing individuals to amend their legal sex to align with their gender identity. This legislation laid the foundation for understanding "sex" as being inclusive of acquired sex in the category of sex, reflecting a growing recognition of gender diversity.

The Equality Act 2010, steered through Parliament under the guidance of Melanie Field, provided a comprehensive legal framework to protect against discrimination based on protected characteristics, including sex. Melanie Field's involvement as a key drafter, architect and steward of the legislation connects it to the evolving progression of equality laws.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, also written and guided through Parliament by Melanie Field, explicitly references "Same Sex" in its title, further advancing the recognition of acquired sex being inclusive of acquired sex. By addressing marital rights for individuals whose legal sex may have been amended under the GRA, the 2013 Act reinforces the interpretation of sex in legal contexts as inclusive of acquired sex.

Together, these Acts demonstrate a coherent progression. The GRA informs the understanding of sex as inclusive of acquired sex in the Equality Act, while the later Marriage (SSC) Act underscores its application in contexts such as marriage. By situating the Equality Act between these two pieces of legislation and recognising the continuous influence of Melanie Field, it becomes evident that "sex" within the 2010 Act can be understood to include acquired sex, ensuring consistency across the legal framework.

This coherent progression furthers the linearity of the legal precedent, that there is consistency in the meaning of sex to be taken as appearing on one's birth certificate.

Had the SC followed this reasoning, it would have been the case that fundamental rights established at the ECJ in the case of of P v. S and Cornwall County Council, also derived directive Equal Treatment Directive (Directive 76/207/EEC), would have been satisfied.

The ECJ ruled in favor of P, stating that the dismissal of a person for reasons related to gender reassignment was a breach of the Directive. The Court emphasized that the principle of equal treatment extended to discrimination arising from gender reassignment, as it was fundamentally linked to the sex of the individual. This decision marked the first time that discrimination against ''transgender individuals'' on the basis of sex was explicitly recognized in employment law.

This ruling was subsequently considered by the ECHR in the case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom.

In the case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, the ECHR addressed several issues, including discrimination. Goodwin, a trans woman, faced challenges related to her legal recognition as female after gender reassignment surgery. She argued that this lack of recognition led to discrimination in areas like employment, social security, and pensions.

The ECHR found violations of Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, it concluded that no separate issue arose under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), as the discrimination claims were already examined under Article 8. The Court emphasized the importance of dignity and freedom for trans people and recognized the need for legal measures to address their challenges.

This landmark judgment influenced the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in the UK, which allowed trans people to legally have state recognition of their gender identity with a default procedure of amendment of sex recorded at birth to legal sex under the provision in the act of ''for all purposes''. The purpose of marital rights is not a listed exclusion. Therefore the effect is given that sex in the context of the act is the acquired sex.

Given all of the above it can be reasonably argued that an interpretation of the Equality Act is a break in the linearity of legal precedent of not only that which preceded it, but also relevant subsequent statute.

We could continue this journey with a discussion relating to changes in statute following the excise of legal obligations following Brexit. Briefly then, prior ECJ rulings retain legal force. In recognition of this, amendments made to the Equality Act in the name of Kemi Badenoch were required not only to respect the rights afforded to the aforementioned 'P', but also to respect the provisions of allowing more favourable outcomes, and disallowing less favourable outcomes in the furtherance of discrimination law.

Article 7 Minimum requirements​

1.Member States may introduce or maintain provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment between men and women than those laid down in this Directive.

2.The implementation of this Directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of protection against discrimination already afforded by Member States in the fields covered by this Directive.

 

[CXRAndy]

Scottish FA have kicked TiMs into touch. No longer allowed to play with women

 

[Mr Celine]

Scottish FA have kicked TiMs into touch.

No they haven't, they won the league last Saturday and play the Dons in the cup final later this month.

 

[AndyRM]

No they haven't, they won the league last Saturday and play the Dons in the cup final later this month.

He won't get that, but it's good. Very good.

Watch out though, people are getting upset about Kneecap on another thread.

 

[CXRAndy]

No they haven't, they won the league last Saturday and play the Dons in the cup final later this month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3xg4l7774o

The Scottish FA is updating its gender policy in order to ban transgender women competing in women's football, BBC Scotland has learned.

From next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game.

Football season is nearly over, as is trans in women's Scottish football