I know I keep promoting this crowdfunder but having just sat through the argument being made by Scot Gov that transwomen should be considered women in law (we are just talking men who self ID as women, not necessarily anyone who has surgically or medically transitioned 1/ https://twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1317088651407462406

or a need for a GRC that would make them legally female) then the importance of this ruling is huge, regardless of outcome. We should all be truly grateful that @ForwomenScot have taken on this judicial review on our behalf. It takes a lot of personal time & finances & a lot 2/

of risk (financial & reputational) for these women to do this, to challenge the Scottish Government & their treatment of women.
I am truly grateful for their strength and bravery in taking on this challenge. Thank you
PS Please donate what you can to their legal fees!

Quite a complex start to the afternoon (lots of discussion about whether a Hansard segment was allowed or whether it was being "smuggled in") & now on to whether the the GRPB Act is compliant with the Public Sector Equality Duties, which separates out sex from gender reassignment

FWS QC : Making point that while this legislation is redefining woman, Scot Govs claim that is will affect no other aspect of life/law will be used to lobby, as precedent to apply transwomen are women on other aspects of life.

also states Scot Gov's stance that "transwomen are women" is unprecedented. Evidence provided by Equality Network, for example, are using this definition of women to redefine the Scottish census question on sex.

Judge states she can't make a ruling on things that haven't happened yet (like future cases of this Scot Gov definition of TWAW bleeding into other aspects of law) while acknowledging the significance of this redefinition.

FWS QC pointing out that transmen (women who identify as men, not living as women but are FEMALE) are excluded from the definition of woman in this legislation (and yet male NB can be included as women). This venn diagram is a bloody mess.

so this GRPB is not about including people (as Scot Gov claims) but excludes females from the group of women. so excludes a "born" woman who is "living as a woman, whatever that means". While a male who "is living as a woman" is counted as a woman. Where is the evidence he asks

Westminster granted power to Scotland specifically on public boards, acknowledging under-representation of females on boards, but what has come out is legislation has resulted in born men being giving advantage over born women

QC asking if transmen are men. I do like this QC :-)
"Fundamental shift, incredibly shift". Judge agrees that must be the logic of ScotGov, that born women "living as men" are not protected in law as a woman. Noo definition of what "living as a man" or "living as a woman" means

Hell yeah! What does it mean?

Repeat that Scottish Gov claim that they can "ride roughshod over Equality Act", empowered to re-write the rules, write it's own rules in an unconstrained way, in relation to appointment members of public boards.

"Equal opportunities legislation is disapplied"

While still limited in application, still quite quite remarkable that this specific area can have equal opportunities law rewritten like this.

Judge asking FWS QC is he agrees with Scot Gov's interpretation that if Westminster had wanted to reserve (retain rights to defining) the Equality Act it should have been explicit. FWS QC is arguing it was taken as given that Equality act was of course reserved but

Scot Gov could *add* to it but not change it. Equality Act is not basis of Scot Gov's GRPB Act, it goes against the Equality Act. Sets up something else, with a redefined set of equal opportunities

FWS QC states the Scotland Act only allows for positive inclusion of new protected characteristics, not the exclusion of protected characteristics (and Scot Gov are excluding "born" women)

FWS QC points out the redefinition of woman was not consulted on before introduction to Act.

CEDAW - intended to give protection on basis of sex. Scot Gov had said should protect gender and sex based on their interpretation of CEDAW. Sex is not one's destiny :-)

Scot Gov has said section in CEDAW supported GRPB re-definition of women, FWS QCV says it doesn't since CEDAW is about sex-based protection. where it mentions gender-identity of female-born women, not men who are "living as women".

The necessary proportionality assessment was not done (by Scot Gov) before legislation was enforced, and it should have been done because of the legal consequences of the re-definition of women. This is meant to be a positive action measure towards those with

historical/social disadvantage and work has not been done by Scot Gov to show born men living as women are disadvantaged and that born women who are living as men are not suddenly not disadvantaged

This seems (to a non-lawyer) a very strong point. The equal opportunities assessment has not been carried out to assess how women may be impacted by the inclusion of transwomen in their category.

since GRA and protected characteristic of gender reassignment has not be stated to be incompatible with EU law, then EU law should have applied.

This legislation discriminated against born women who don't live as women. Assumption is just identifying as a man stops all social disadvantage (if only that were true), "the patriarchy would fall before her like the walls of Jericho", and we know that is not the case.

Wow. He states If that were true race discrimination could be overcome by putting on a red baseball cap and rioting the US Capitol. Also that it would mean men who live as women would suddenly start experiencing the same disadvantage as women, to the same degree"

There is no evidence any of this is true as Scot Gov didn't carry out the assessment. So, sends "dangerous" message that women can just identify out of discrimination, just like case of Keira Bell and increasing number of young women looking for puberty blockers.

"Seems to me, from a feminist perspective, a capitulation to the patriarchy". My word! We should be challenging patriarchy but aspects of this act reinforces the patriarchy. I feel that some emotional music should be playing here. Elgar.

Scot Gov QC - points out Judge doesn't rule on whether the ruling should be challenging patriarchy, only if it had a legal basis. Now explaining why their interpretation of CEDAW was correct, some text apparently said it welcomed the GRPB Act.

Question from Judge, did the "policy" of TWAW exist before GRPB Act. Scot Gov now seeming to wheedle out of it being a proper policy. It was/is the Government's view, not necessarily a "legal art" or policy.

Scot Gov QC saying the scope of positive action was limited to persons with protected character, important but limited. Says she didn't say "using roughshod"

Judge acknowledges she used the phrase. If something is within Scot Gov's competence there is nothing remarkable about them implementing/changing legislation. (so rebutting FWS QC's claim it was remarkable)

Context is everything. Statement from Minister that Equality Act is reserved was a shorthand, incomplete statement that equal opportunities were reserved to Westminster. But in the context of single sex services, so context is important. Minister not stating every aspect

of Equality Act was reserved? Definition of women in GRPB Act will have no impact on single-sex activities (medical examinations, rape shelters).

So is it okay that females can be excluded from public boards but as long as they get medical examinations from another female it's okay?

Judge summing up, many volumes of papers. Will adjourn. (I bet for a couple of months, good job we're in lockdown :-))

Apologies for bad spelling, bad grammar and general incoherence.