Very pleased to say, we've at last managed to get up some practical guidance on what the For (Some) Women Scotland decision means. Tl;dr it's absolutely *not* what the bigots in Government or the bigots leading the misnamed EHRC are telling you. goodlaw.social/1c68df - ThreadSky

goodlawproject.org • 10 hours ago

Very pleased to say, we've at last managed to get up some practical guidance on what the For (Some) Women Scotland decision means.

Tl;dr it's absolutely *not* what the bigots in Government or the bigots leading the misnamed EHRC are telling you. https://goodlaw.social/1c68df

Comments

debsnoise.bsky.social•4 hours ago

Currently a person with a GRC who starts a new job that requires a DBS check will contact the DBS to inform them of status to avoid disclosure. Is there any impact upon this process from the SC decision and likely EHRC guidance?

calliencd.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Thanks GLP for this very extensive update. However, I’m interested in whether the state of things as per the EA are still contradictory to the GRA and HRA case law such as Croft vs The Post office? And if that is the case there is merit in seeking an overturning of the SC ruling?

calliencd.bsky.social•5 hours ago

Also how does it affect changing rooms, hospital wards, clubs etc?

aminaerin.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thanks for this jolyon

alexdwrites.bsky.social•9 hours ago

This is excellent, but I am curious no inspection lamp has been brought to bear on what I understood to be the Supreme Court's undefined use of the word 'biological'.

Has the relevance of this question been overemphasised, or has prodding it been deemed to run a risk of making matters worse?

goodlawproject.org•9 hours ago

Not *yet*.

alexdwrites.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Good to hear and thank you!

deannaallison.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Now that's a very good point, and I say that as someone who has studied biology at an advanced level.

random745003.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Thank you

lindawall.bsky.social•5 hours ago

"It might be lawful for employers & service providers to segregate toilets according to natal sex," but how can this be workable as unless disclosed, employers & service providers have no way of ascertaining a person's birth sex. Given this, how can it be lawful to discriminate based on perception.

mycams.bsky.social•9 hours ago

I had a most excellent MIL who used "To thine own self be true" and she would have approved of that placard.

tacc.org.uk•7 hours ago

Can we please get an edit to include trans men?

https://bsky.app/profile/tacc.org.uk/post/3lp5vfbyekc24

andrewhickey.500songs.com•5 hours ago

The court case in question only ruled on trans women, so the specific legal points made there only apply to them.

rabthecat.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Such a relief to see this posted. I have been saying this ever since the decision and been called all sorts. I will be sharing this to all the people who have called me a terf (etc etc) for saying no, please actually READ the decision and you will find it does not say what you are saying it says.

fergus.oolong.co.uk•5 hours ago

...and what the government and EHRC have implied it says, crucially.

thejessiekirk.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thanks so much

rubecula52.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thanks for all the hard work. Do you have any thoughts on trans people not disclosing to their employer they are trans? e.g. if they have a GRC, not disclosing this when showing a birth certificate as proof of gender?

hierath77.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Do you think employers should ask people what genitals they had when they were born? How is that relevant to their ability to do a job?

definitelynobody.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thank you! But wow what an absolute mess of ambiguity, contradiction and risk.

sarahjuk.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Where are the trans men in all of this? Please, Jolyon, get this guidance amended to include trans men.

sarahjuk.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Well that's cleared it up nicely. I can see clearly through the mud now 🫤

sarahjuk.bsky.social•8 hours ago

This guidance just shows what a mess the whole equality law now is.

fiercemum.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Jo - can we not quit the language of "natal men and women".

If services are provided to those born a man (rather than born a baby) the service will not be well attended.

The language of 'cis' and 'assigned sex' is useful here.

goodlawproject.org•7 hours ago

Not saying we got it right but it's not easy. We didn't want to use the language of the Supreme Court ('biological sex'). And we wanted to speak to a cis audience to whom 'assigned sex' may not be hugely clear.

debsnoise.bsky.social•5 hours ago

When the SC say 'biological sex' do they not actually mean 'certificated sex at birth', which is based upon the medical practice of 'glanced at groin'

transforumuk.bsky.social•4 hours ago

I find it's almost always clearest & best to use their terminology quotatively, in inverted commas & hedged with "so-called".

Therefore "so-called 'biological sex'" or "so-called 'birth sex'" etc

Then they can't (pretend to) misunderstand & also makes clear the dodginess of their terminology.

quarkbee.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Can you not put a definition in?

fiona-the-celt.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thankyou GoodLaw Project team

tilly.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Thank you.

lizthelemming.bsky.social•9 hours ago

This is helpful in terms of understanding what the ruling actually means. Sadly I doubt it will stop people being challenged on using a gender appropriate toilet. Transphobes will quote their mistaken understanding of the law. They do not have a good track record on accepting they are wrong.

coppercats.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Thank you for this update

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply