All this absolute balderdash - 'How many angels dance on the end of a pin?' Just REPEAL THE GRA and rewrite - or possibly repeal - the Equality Act. What a criminal waste of everyone's time and money - good for lawyers, though.
Strong agree, but these women cannot focus on sense, and law. Legislation is the issue, not presentation. #RepealtheGRA #RepealtheEA And get rid of Hate crime laws and ECHR from the UK... And Sharia courts 😊
Yes, down here in Tasmania, the current ruling, has been that transgender ID'd males are more oppressed than lesbians, and therefore must be given preferential treatment when it comes to association. Tasmania legalised gay male sex in 1997. Our attitude towards lesbian sex prior to then was equal to that of Queen Victoria.
Thanks for this - watching on from Australia where we are awaiting a big court decision on the same issue! Can lesbians gather with other lesbians? Lots of love to sisters in the UK and Ireland. ❤
Just a minor point here, are you allowed to call them "sisters" as this assumes that you are being discriminatory towards transitioned women. You have entered a minefield here so we do need someone out front with a working mine detector.
I read online RE this case: “The Scottish government stated it couldn’t comment on live proceedings but issued a statement that it is: “Committed to dignity and respect for all. Supporting women is at the heart of the Scottish government’s vision for a fairer Scotland, and we are investing record levels of funding, including significant levels in frontline services to support victims of violence against women and girls.”” Surly by their own definitions this statement is completely meaningless…? Or else it supports the idea that at the heart of everything is their desire to promote trans men…..?
Legislation pertains to 'things', not people. It's legally possible for anything to be anything, because the whole basis of legislation is 'that which is not real '. That's surely all anyone needs to know. Everyone knows what a woman is, if they need some bizarre 'ruling' they're obviously not worth taking seriously.
If you did ask someone to produce their GRC, they could argue that they were being treated differently to other 'women' and therefore discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic.
Then, if you call a man a man or kick him out of the ladies' because your eyes see a man and you have no right to verify his claim that he's a woman, is that really misgendering and discrimination? It's just a case of he said she said, and you'd need confirmation from an official party with the requisite competences to verify his legal sex. Perhaps the police should be called to mediate all such innocent incidents because nobody can tell what a woman is without a legal paper.
If they push for the rule of 25 and above, get creative...form pods of 24 instead. Play them at their own game. Another alternative is to look into PMAs...private membership associations where they function outside of the law.
I don't really understand the lesbian dialogue in this court case.. It assumes that lesbians want to become male when as far as I can determine, this is not always the case. Women attracted to women often don't want to give up the female side. The reverse of course sometimes applies to gay men. So, the court appears to make the decision that lesbians want to transition. Maybe some do as do some gay men, but not all. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture and somehow I don't think the court is either. I don't understand how a cross gender person gets a certificate. It's this that blurs the process as far as I can see. Convicted criminals (normally only male) saying that they are identifying as a woman to perhaps get a better prison life is dangerous. It would be very dangerous for a lesbian, identifying as a male, to end up in a male prison. I'm lost on this subject.
I’m wondering, as a Scot, if this is the Scottish governments way of being SEEN to be trans inclusionary in relation to the Equalities Act, but knowing their arguments aren’t that compelling. They could have made far better arguments in my opinion. To me, the Scottish Government know Nicola Sturgeons demise was in part due to her refusal to define a woman as anything but a biological woman, which did not go down well here in Scotland, and the First Minister knows that. I think the government are trying to pull away from the gender stuff but do it in such a way as not to loose the support of the far left. So losing this case by maybe not entirely trying hard to win, might be a shrewd political move. The first Minister didn’t appoint Kate Forbes - a devout Christian - for no reason. That was done to show Scottish people they’re no longer pushing ahead with far left policies. Just my thoughts.
I got a bit lost in the 'definitions' of lesbians. Specifically the four types mentioned on twitter. Anyone help me out with what the four types were defined as, please. (I know the 'two same sex attracted women' is the only logical, actual one)
They won't define 'Sex' so we need to change the question, get them to define 'Gender'. Is it Sex (Male/Female) is it Sexuality (Gay/Staright/Bi/Pan etc) or is it personality (Effeminate/Masculine) imo at the moment they are using all 3 to cover all bases
Hi all, thank you for posting this! I'm a gay man, and I'd like to ensure I understand this, please. It seems that the foundational issue is making everything boil down to being a "man" or "woman," where it looks as if we defined things as "man," "woman," and 'trans person" would be more accurate? This comes from the (perceived) idea that a man with a GRC is deemed a lesbian but actually lives as a hetero woman? Thanks for any help.
'Trans' is not a sex and it would be nonsensical to add it as an extra sex category. That would just pile confusion on top of confusion. The foundational issue is the GRA which smerges together sex and gender and creates a legal fiction that the holder of a GRC has actually changed sex, which of course is impossible. Ideally the GRA needs to be repealed but if that is genuinely too politically difficult then for now we need a one line amendment to say that section 9 (1) of the GRA does not apply to the Equality Act. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'This comes from the (perceived) idea that a man with a GRC is deemed a lesbian but actually lives as a hetero woman?' A straight man fancies women. If he gets a GRC he becomes legally a woman. A woman who fancies women is a lesbian. So now the law pretends that a straight man is a lesbian. He doesn't live as any kind of woman because he is a man. Hope that makes sense.
I will get through this presentation so that i understand what happened. However 11 minutes in and I'm being bombarded with personal views and attempts to ridicule. This is serious and all about the definitions. If we can't come up with definitions that define sex (the science, DNA bit), sexual orientation (let's simplify this to the heterosexual, non-heterosexual bit) and gender, then we can't start to define the rights and protections required. I think we get too het up about gender because that is what is in the GRA. Maybe we're not getting the definitions right or not applying some that should be used to include or exclude additional categorisation. For example, certain rights and protections can only be granted to your DNA sex. Certain rights can only be granted to gender. If we get conflicts in the rights of women (gender) with the rights of females (sex) because someone transitioning gets defined as a woman at a stage of the process that still maintains a high level of risk to a female then we might need a new definition or we use sex as the characteristic. (But this won't allow transitioning). Once we get the definitions right, we can then re-write the whole of the law to make it work. The situation is currently absurd because we can't adequately categorise, define, explain and regulate. Don't ridicule. Be better at pointing out the problems, suggest definitions that work and campaign for the corrections to the laws that are required.
As a gay man fighting for same sex rights for Over 35 years I stand with all Adult Human Females! Watching from Pacific Northwest USA 🇺🇸
Sinister beyond belief this whole tqa cult. Stupid and dangerous. This battle has to be won for our sanity
Laws do not change facts!
Thank you very much for such a helpful explanation of the legal presentation and background. I'm glad that the lesbian voice is finally being heard!
All this absolute balderdash - 'How many angels dance on the end of a pin?' Just REPEAL THE GRA and rewrite - or possibly repeal - the Equality Act.
What a criminal waste of everyone's time and money - good for lawyers, though.
Strong agree, but these women cannot focus on sense, and law. Legislation is the issue, not presentation. #RepealtheGRA #RepealtheEA
And get rid of Hate crime laws and ECHR from the UK... And Sharia courts 😊
That was an excellent summary of the arguments & proceedings, much appreciated.
Hi from Canada!
Yes, down here in Tasmania, the current ruling, has been that transgender ID'd males are more oppressed than lesbians, and therefore must be given preferential treatment when it comes to association. Tasmania legalised gay male sex in 1997. Our attitude towards lesbian sex prior to then was equal to that of Queen Victoria.
Really enjoyed this - thanks for spending the time to pull this together. Keep fighting. Good luck ❤
Thanks for this - watching on from Australia where we are awaiting a big court decision on the same issue! Can lesbians gather with other lesbians? Lots of love to sisters in the UK and Ireland. ❤
Forgive me my ignorance… which decision is being awaited in Australia and in which jurisdiction (i.e. is it state or federal)? Thanks in advance. 🌻🐞
Chromosones only should be the deciding factor. Edit: looks like there is still hope that common sense will win though.
Let's hope so but I doubt it.
Excellent presentation.
I am quietly confident to...for ALL "real" women!! Excellent summation of the court case - thank you!
Thank you for making this understandable, sisters.✊
Just a minor point here, are you allowed to call them "sisters" as this assumes that you are being discriminatory towards transitioned women. You have entered a minefield here so we do need someone out front with a working mine detector.
Stupidest culture war in world history. Witch trials made more sense.
It does sound hopeful!
You go girls!!! As a straight woman I appreciate your fight for all of us x
I read online RE this case:
“The Scottish government stated it couldn’t comment on live proceedings but issued a statement that it is:
“Committed to dignity and respect for all. Supporting women is at the heart of the Scottish government’s vision for a fairer Scotland, and we are investing record levels of funding, including significant levels in frontline services to support victims of violence against women and girls.””
Surly by their own definitions this statement is completely meaningless…? Or else it supports the idea that at the heart of everything is their desire to promote trans men…..?
Clearly, putting rapists into womens prisons indicates how much the scottish govt cares about womens safety. Madhouse.
Legislation pertains to 'things', not people. It's legally possible for anything to be anything, because the whole basis of legislation is 'that which is not real '. That's surely all anyone needs to know. Everyone knows what a woman is, if they need some bizarre 'ruling' they're obviously not worth taking seriously.
Well done FWS, a lot of work over a long time.
Have we (or the SNP) gone completely insane?
they are insane
Thank you for this very clear summary.
If it wasn't for that darned GRA...
The Lesbian Interveners were Scottish Lesbians, The Lesbian Project and LGB Alliance. Sally did not coordinate us.
If you did ask someone to produce their GRC, they could argue that they were being treated differently to other 'women' and therefore discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic.
Then, if you call a man a man or kick him out of the ladies' because your eyes see a man and you have no right to verify his claim that he's a woman, is that really misgendering and discrimination? It's just a case of he said she said, and you'd need confirmation from an official party with the requisite competences to verify his legal sex. Perhaps the police should be called to mediate all such innocent incidents because nobody can tell what a woman is without a legal paper.
Excellent. It's nice to see all of you together instead of just talking heads.
If they push for the rule of 25 and above, get creative...form pods of 24 instead. Play them at their own game. Another alternative is to look into PMAs...private membership associations where they function outside of the law.
Very helpful video to attempt understanding. Thank you.
Adult human female♀️🙏
I don't really understand the lesbian dialogue in this court case.. It assumes that lesbians want to become male when as far as I can determine, this is not always the case. Women attracted to women often don't want to give up the female side. The reverse of course sometimes applies to gay men. So, the court appears to make the decision that lesbians want to transition. Maybe some do as do some gay men, but not all. Perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture and somehow I don't think the court is either. I don't understand how a cross gender person gets a certificate. It's this that blurs the process as far as I can see. Convicted criminals (normally only male) saying that they are identifying as a woman to perhaps get a better prison life is dangerous. It would be very dangerous for a lesbian, identifying as a male, to end up in a male prison. I'm lost on this subject.
It seems like that entire Act should be withdrawn and reworked. It a “try again, and come back later with something that works.”
It’s gone quantum but without logic. What “gender” is the cat in the box?
Schrödinger gendered? 😂
I’m wondering, as a Scot, if this is the Scottish governments way of being SEEN to be trans inclusionary in relation to the Equalities Act, but knowing their arguments aren’t that compelling. They could have made far better arguments in my opinion. To me, the Scottish Government know Nicola Sturgeons demise was in part due to her refusal to define a woman as anything but a biological woman, which did not go down well here in Scotland, and the First Minister knows that. I think the government are trying to pull away from the gender stuff but do it in such a way as not to loose the support of the far left. So losing this case by maybe not entirely trying hard to win, might be a shrewd political move. The first Minister didn’t appoint Kate Forbes - a devout Christian - for no reason. That was done to show Scottish people they’re no longer pushing ahead with far left policies. Just my thoughts.
Huh! The Mary Fee (lab/ENL/STA) amendment was supported by all parties, put in at the last moment. Look at the funding, look at sexual proclivities.
I got a bit lost in the 'definitions' of lesbians. Specifically the four types mentioned on twitter. Anyone help me out with what the four types were defined as, please.
(I know the 'two same sex attracted women' is the only logical, actual one)
Very confusing. Designed that way.
Thank you ❤
There is no such thing as positive discrimination. Without negatively impacting some, you cannot positively impact others.
FWS 🎉
Is this the same Sally Wainwright who's the widely acclaimed television writer?
no
When are they supposed to make a final decision?
Not until into the new year, maybe March.
They won't define 'Sex' so we need to change the question, get them to define 'Gender'. Is it Sex (Male/Female) is it Sexuality (Gay/Staright/Bi/Pan etc) or is it personality (Effeminate/Masculine) imo at the moment they are using all 3 to cover all bases
Don't agree thatc50% of board members need be wonen let alone men pretending to be women.
❤
Total loonacy.
This is stupid
It's not binary, though: what about trisomic individuals? Perhaps you need non-gendered as well. And I am a legist of the Belgian Supreme Court...
This is ridiculous, just use the disabled toliet…
The world is full of problems for which there are simple solutions...that are wrong.
Hi all, thank you for posting this! I'm a gay man, and I'd like to ensure I understand this, please. It seems that the foundational issue is making everything boil down to being a "man" or "woman," where it looks as if we defined things as "man," "woman," and 'trans person" would be more accurate? This comes from the (perceived) idea that a man with a GRC is deemed a lesbian but actually lives as a hetero woman? Thanks for any help.
'Trans' is not a sex and it would be nonsensical to add it as an extra sex category. That would just pile confusion on top of confusion. The foundational issue is the GRA which smerges together sex and gender and creates a legal fiction that the holder of a GRC has actually changed sex, which of course is impossible. Ideally the GRA needs to be repealed but if that is genuinely too politically difficult then for now we need a one line amendment to say that section 9 (1) of the GRA does not apply to the Equality Act.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'This comes from the (perceived) idea that a man with a GRC is deemed a lesbian but actually lives as a hetero woman?'
A straight man fancies women. If he gets a GRC he becomes legally a woman. A woman who fancies women is a lesbian. So now the law pretends that a straight man is a lesbian. He doesn't live as any kind of woman because he is a man.
Hope that makes sense.
@@Gerry_DaviesWell said. (though probs answering a troll) 🎉
@Gerry_Davies it helps thanks!
I will get through this presentation so that i understand what happened. However 11 minutes in and I'm being bombarded with personal views and attempts to ridicule. This is serious and all about the definitions. If we can't come up with definitions that define sex (the science, DNA bit), sexual orientation (let's simplify this to the heterosexual, non-heterosexual bit) and gender, then we can't start to define the rights and protections required.
I think we get too het up about gender because that is what is in the GRA. Maybe we're not getting the definitions right or not applying some that should be used to include or exclude additional categorisation.
For example, certain rights and protections can only be granted to your DNA sex. Certain rights can only be granted to gender. If we get conflicts in the rights of women (gender) with the rights of females (sex) because someone transitioning gets defined as a woman at a stage of the process that still maintains a high level of risk to a female then we might need a new definition or we use sex as the characteristic. (But this won't allow transitioning).
Once we get the definitions right, we can then re-write the whole of the law to make it work.
The situation is currently absurd because we can't adequately categorise, define, explain and regulate.
Don't ridicule. Be better at pointing out the problems, suggest definitions that work and campaign for the corrections to the laws that are required.
It is interesting you are for so-called "positive discrimination" when most of the British public are not, women included.