This post is a part of a series that I am doing in the legal aspects and implications of the appeal in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that will be heard by the UK Supreme Court at the end of November 2024.
Just read Amnesty's submission. At para 42 it states that, if FWS’s case is accepted, it would mean that para 28 of Sch 3 of the EqA 2010 (exception for gender reassignment discrim) was superfluous. This seems wrong. It claims that because all individuals with a GRC could be excluded under para 26 (separate services) or para 27 (single sex services) para 28 is superfluous. The claim that para 28 is superfluous seems wrong as para 28 could be used, if legitimate and proportionate etc., to exclude, e.g. a transman from a female single sex service.
Amnesty makes a similar point in para 45 of its submission about the alleged superfluity of s195(2) of the EqA. It's harder to think of an obvious example of why s195(2) is needed, if FWS's case is accepted. s195(2) requires consideration of fairness or safety.
The EA2010 is entirely clear (I would think this is agreed) that possession, or not, of a GRC is entirely irrelevant to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.
So surely it must be entire clear that the Act has equally the same amount of don't-care-certificate-doesn't-matter when it comes to the (much less proximate, in GRA2004 terms) protected characteristic of 'sex'?
Thank you for these posts. Having read them all, it seems unthinkable to me that the Supreme Court could not find in favour of FWS. But then, I once thought it unthinkable that anyone could believe that males should simply be able to self-identify their way into female spaces and services and that women would be vilified for objecting..
The tension builds! Thanks for this series, it has provided valuable insights.
Do you think the request made for the Govt and other not-yet published submissions to the court will be honoured before battle commences?
Thank you.
Just read Amnesty's submission. At para 42 it states that, if FWS’s case is accepted, it would mean that para 28 of Sch 3 of the EqA 2010 (exception for gender reassignment discrim) was superfluous. This seems wrong. It claims that because all individuals with a GRC could be excluded under para 26 (separate services) or para 27 (single sex services) para 28 is superfluous. The claim that para 28 is superfluous seems wrong as para 28 could be used, if legitimate and proportionate etc., to exclude, e.g. a transman from a female single sex service.
Amnesty makes a similar point in para 45 of its submission about the alleged superfluity of s195(2) of the EqA. It's harder to think of an obvious example of why s195(2) is needed, if FWS's case is accepted. s195(2) requires consideration of fairness or safety.
The EA2010 is entirely clear (I would think this is agreed) that possession, or not, of a GRC is entirely irrelevant to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.
So surely it must be entire clear that the Act has equally the same amount of don't-care-certificate-doesn't-matter when it comes to the (much less proximate, in GRA2004 terms) protected characteristic of 'sex'?
Thank you for these posts. Having read them all, it seems unthinkable to me that the Supreme Court could not find in favour of FWS. But then, I once thought it unthinkable that anyone could believe that males should simply be able to self-identify their way into female spaces and services and that women would be vilified for objecting..