1/🧵 I'm tweeting some obvious legal implications of the Scottish Ministers case to help develop ideas for articles. This is a quick thread based on my initial reading, so take it as preliminary.
First, the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 no longer applies to trans people.
First, the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 no longer applies to trans people.
Comments
The rest is so much hot air.
It’s more complex than it seems. I’ll now go into the details.
What will stop a transphobe in our workplaces calling us men & stating they're simply referring to legally mandated biological reality?
People in public toilets don't care about paragraph 6 subsection 3 saying from a certain perpective we can still pee. They care about the EHRC announcing a bathroom ban.
The court completely rejected Aidan O'Neill KC's arguments on behalf of For Women Scotland.
Also the court says that it would be entirely incorrect to describe section 9(1) as creating a “legal fiction” as a deeming provision does. So Sex Matter's submission did not succeed.
This matches the fallback position I’ve taken in my own writings, so I’m pleased the court accepted it.
Domestically, the Human Rights Act is useless in this case because it’s the Supreme Court that is making the wrong decision.