What is a woman?

[monkers]

I don't need to discuss it with someone posting under a different person's identity.

I am not discussing the merits or otherwise of the Supreme Court's judgement.

I am discussing the constitutional position of a judgement of the Supreme Court.

Sadly, you do not appear to appreciate that the constitutional position of a Supreme Vourt judgement is not affected by whether you like or agree with the judgement.

You are not discussing, you are expressing dogma.

I do understand the standing of the SC. I also have read their judgement - all 88 pages - and had the benefit of a lawyer sitting on the same sofa as me to explain it - all pro bono - isn't that wonderful!

I do not have to accept the dogmatic assertion that because the SC made that decision that they have not erred in some part.

N has taken me through the steps of understanding what a ''deeming provision'' is and what it is not. In the past N has informed me about the power of legal precedents, legal tests, and decisions that handed down advice.

There is a deeming provision in the GRA, and in concert with convention rights, present a compelling argument that trans people do have the protected characteristic of sex. There is also the no small matter that the author of that text later bringing clarity to that in evidence to an All Party Select Committee where is was accepted ''as word''. Later the same author duplicated that intention and meaning in the 2013 Same Sex Married Couples Act.
N again highlighted that the clarity is provided by standing within the timeline that forms the legal precedent at different points in time in order to understand the logical flow. She says that standing in the timeline in 2004 with the deeming provision of ''for all purposes'' demonstrates that trans women are women for all purposes, and trans men are men for all purposes. Standing the timeline in 2010 and reading the Equality Act with no change of the precedent highlighted, and in concert with the deeming provision from the previous act indicates the direction of travel. That leaves room for discussion and interpretation since there was no definitions and no carve out. Standing in the timeline in 2013 gives evidence that the deeming provision of the GRA continues the direction of travel.

Therefore N's insight is that, the SC have erred by standing in the timeline at the point of 2010 and only looking backwards, while they had the opportunity to see the effects of the 2004 Act in the past and the shaping that act provided on the subsequent 2013 Act.

I'm not pretending they are my insights, I'm not the one with legal brain, but it does make sense to me. If they are my not insights, where did I get them from?

Now if you can find some mysterious source that I stole them from, then you have no evidence to say or suggest that N does not exist. While her written insights provide evidence that she or somebody must. If you can not find that somebody and show they are not N, then all that exists is your sneering cynicism. And it's the latter.

 

[CXRAndy]

It wasn't trans rights being diminished, it was women's rights.

Trans were expecting women to accept their safe spaces could be invaded by males.

 

[icowden]

Therefore N's insight is that, the SC have erred by standing in the timeline at the point of 2010 and only looking backwards, while they had the opportunity to see the effects of the 2004 Act in the past and the shaping that act provided on the subsequent 2013 Act.

It would be very interesting to know why the SC took that approach though.

 

[AuroraSaab]

VM and one other applied to the SC to be the voices that represent trans people in this procedure which is tantamount to a rebalancing of competing rights. She and the other applicant were denied. No other voices from trans people are groups were permitted either.

Why do you persist in repeating this when you know that no submissions from individuals were permitted? The court isn't obliged to consider the opinions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry - from either side - who wish to chip in.

They weren't asking for feedback from every person affected because that's what the lawyers were for - to summarise the arguments.

On the one hand their was For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, and two other groups presenting legal arguments to have the effect of diminishing trans rights, and no voices to the contrary, save for a written statement from Amnesty International.

This again is a lie that you repeat. In fact the case was argued in court by both sides in full:

• Aiden O'Neil made the FWS case.
• Ruth Crawford KC and Lesley Irvine, Advocate, made the Scottish Government’s case

The interveners for the Scottish government were:

1. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s; spoken intervention given by Jason Coppel KC.
2. Amnesty International; written intervention was given by Lui Asquith, a former Mermaids lawyer.

The interveners for For Women Scotland were:

1. Sex Matters charity, spoken by Ben Cooper.
2. Coalition of 3 small lesbian groups, written intervention by Karen Monaghan.

If McCloud wasn't chosen as an intervener instead of the other 2 you need to ask whether McCloud's submission shed any light on the case and why it was judged of less value than say Amnesty's. The court isn't obliged to take every person's lived experience into account when the arguments are already covered by counsel.

Lui Asquith identifies as transgender, so there was at least one trans voice in front of the court, who presumably drafted the written statement

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women's cricket and netball are now for women only.

 

[CXRAndy]

Scottish FA have kicked TiMs into touch.

No they haven't

English FA from June 1st

What were you saying 🤔

 

[monkers]

It would be very interesting to know why the SC took that approach though.

Any reply I make to this would rely on supposition. I have no evidence of reasonable suspicion or of wrongdoing. I try not to be too cynical, but equally I am not naive.

As a much broader observation on life, I'm reminded of the influence of the church in decision making, and life more generally.

I am reminded in particular of Cardinal Richeleiu ...

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

It feels almost as if the judges have taken this approach, disallowed the voices of trans people in proceedings, allowed four campaigning groups to have their lawyers make representations, ignored Amnesty's plea to remember convention rights.

Instead it feels that they have chosen not to recognise the deeming provision in the GRA ''for all purposes'', not attempted to stand at the different points in the timeline to identify legal precedent and how they applied at that time, ignored pertinent legal tests, ignored legitimate evidence of what parliament intended, and found six lines of legal text with which to harm trans people.

''six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, and found something in them'' with which they could could harm others.

The above is my suspicion; it is not evidence, it is cynical, it is not intended to be detrimental to the whole justice system, those judges, or other Supreme Court decisions. It is not therefore not an allegation of wrongdoing. As N would very carefully say, ''in this case it appears that the Judges may have erred from their brief''.

 

[CXRAndy]

ECB about to fall into line banning trans from women's sports

English netball too

World professional billiards and snooker
Pool changed their policy last week.

Id expect all sporting bodies in the coming weeks to all ban TiMs from womens sports

Common sense

 

[AuroraSaab]

Again, you are repeating that no trans 'voices' or pro trans arguments were heard. It was a case about the interpretation of sex in the Equality Act. It wasn't a case about trans people per se and the court was not beholden to hear from individual trans people, anymore than it was beholden to hear from individual women.

The lawyers made the arguments, which on the Scottish government's side were obviously very much pro trans.

Denied, disallowed, not heard, ignored .... none of that happened. The Scottish government, ie pro trans side, got the same time and opportunity as the For Women Scotland advocates.

They were unable to make a good enough case.

 

[classic33]

The FA are having to rebrand their slogan For All, as from the 1st June all trans men and trans women will be banned from playing, in any section, under their new rules.

 

[CXRAndy]

The FA are having to rebrand their slogan For All, as from the 1st June all trans men and trans women will be banned from playing, in any section, under their new rules.

No they won't
TiMs can play in the male division
TiFs can play in the female division

Of course if they want to and are good enough

 

[Mr Celine]

What were you saying 🤔

You OK hun?

 

[First Aspect]

The FA are having to rebrand their slogan For All, as from the 1st June all trans men and trans women will be banned from playing, in any section, under their new rules.

The SC judgement was quite narrowly related to their assessment of the intent of the terms in the equalities act at the time it was written. I suspect history will show that the scope of the initial reactions we are now seeing from a range of quarters isn't really much to do with the SC judgment.

It does not, for example, have any bearing on who can play football with who, just on which changing rooms they can use, should one of them happen to be women only.

 

[monkers]

My screen is filled by multiple messages '' You are ignoring content by this member.''

I have Trumpwit Andy and Big Liar AS blocked. Whatever screen ink you two are wasting, it isn't being seen by me so you're wasting your time trying to bait me. I'm done wasting my little precious time left on nasty people.

 

[icowden]

Instead it feels that they have chosen not to recognise the deeming provision in the GRA ''for all purposes'', not attempted to stand at the different points in the timeline to identify legal precedent and how they applied at that time, ignored pertinent legal tests, ignored legitimate evidence of what parliament intended, and found six lines of legal text with which to harm trans people.

And this I suspect is probably the difference between the approach of the SC and your opinion (which I must say that I understand and do not believe it to be an invalid point of view). I believe that the SC was trying to rule entirely on a point of law and what it's interpretation is. Not whether it harms trans people or not, and not whether the law is a positive one or a negative one or good law or bad law.

It will be interesting to see what the ECHR makes of it and whether they believe that there is a case to answer.

I also suspect that even if the ECHR doesn't take any further action, there is probably still a need to clarify the GRA and Equalities Acts with respect to trans people.