The Scottish Playbook – politicalbetting.com
The Scottish Playbook – politicalbetting.com
Where Scotland leads, the English government follows. Really? Well, how else to explain the government’s recent actions following the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland (2) (“FWS”)? It seems to be hanging onto their manly kilts by following precisely the Scottish government’s behaviour – not just following this judgment but an earlier one (FWS (1) – see here).
3
Comments
Just kidding. I am midway through the supreme court judgement and it is super interesting reading. If you like that sort of thing.
(Asking for a friend)
Or is the problem that the Supreme Court judgment was not quite clear-cut?
Maybe a reference to "What bloody man is that?", "Present fears are less than horrible imaginings." Or even: "Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee: I have thee not, and yet I see thee still."
ETA: D'oh, missed the first comment!
Can I just state that I think Brexit was an excellent idea?
And the GLP challenge to the EHRC guidance:-
https://goodlawproject.org/update/were-taking-on-the-ehrc-interim-guidance-in-court/
Wonder no more.
https://x.com/PolymarketIntel/status/1990381848565071974
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jip0x4G4QzM
One thing that our SC has done well, to the upset of people like the Good Law Project, is to refuse to legislate. To knit new laws and rights out of reinterpreting the law.
This is good, because otherwise you end up with the US situation, where the SC has become the third Congressional chamber - and the most powerful one.
Capture the US SC and you have decades of unelected control of Federal America.
Or is the Prog Left viewpoint so ingrained in them that they remain in denial about the FWS decision?
Or are they sending a nod and a wink to interested parties that people don't have to take the FWS decision seriously?
Or all three. Either way this is an argument between biological, empirical fact and wishful ideology. There should only be one winner.
You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.
They need to choose a position. But that would require a drive. Conviction. Principles, perhaps.
OK, to answer your question "Why, for instance, is counsel stating that transwomen i.e. men who identify as women should be allowed into a female only space, such as a public toilet, on a case by case basis, when the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is not in line with the law and unworkable.", you've overlooked the following points
- The Supreme Court did not make single-sex spaces compulsory, they made them possible: the owner of the space can make a space a single-sex space, not must do so.
- The "case-by-case" applies to the owner of the space, not to the users of it. If one company wants to make its kitchen a single-sex space then it can, provided it uses The Words[1]. But if another company doesn't want to make its kitchen a single-sex space then it doesn't have to, unless existing law says it must.
- The Supreme Court ruling applies only to Equality Act matters, and toilets don't come under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court did mention toilets[2] but that doesn't override the scope of the ruling. I figure the SC was winking at the audience here.
NotesYvette Cooper would never have been so brave, but Mahmood 'gets it' though some of her mps will be furious
However, Badenoch has pledged support so looks as if the rebels will not be able to derail it
The ECHR though is a different matter
As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.
I would urge those with an interest in these matters to read the following as companion pieces to Cyclefree's writing on the subject.
1. The argument put forward by the government's lawyers on behalf of Bridget Phillipson at the judicial review of the EHCR's draft guidance:
http://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/MWE-Skeleton-REDACTED.pdf
2. The following article written by the civil servant who is described by the Guardian as having played a key role in the drafting of the 2010 Equality act:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-equality-act-ban-trans-women-from-womens-services-melanie-field-od1ee/
Cyclefree will have read the above already and will doubtless disagree with them, but I provide the links for general consumption.
I have already shared Ian Dunt's coverage of the EHCR's attempt to railroad the government into enacting its guidance in law, as well as the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights' intervention, those can be found here:
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/frightened-and-desperate-ehrc-anti
https://rm.coe.int/letter-to-parliament-and-house-of-commons-of-te-united-kingdom-by-mich/488028ddd7
The argument put forward by the government's lawyers is interesting in the context of the Commissioner's letter, reminding the UK of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and past judgements including Goodwin vs UK.
The government is essentially arguing in (1) above, as I did in the last trans thread, that while the FWS judgement allows discrimination on the basis of birth sex, it does not mandate it, and such exclusions should be necessary and proportionate. This is also Lord Sumption's opinion on the FWS verdict - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html
I would remind the room that the FWS case was not about toilets, it was about whether trans women could be excluded from affirmative action in the form of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The decision essentially boiled down to the law being badly worded, and the court's judgement that interpreting "sex" as "certificated sex" would lead to "unworkable, impractical, anomalous or illogical results".
...
Unworkable, impractical, anomalous and illogical is also what you get in the form of the rushed EHCR draft guidance which mandates trans exclusionary single sex spaces - for example it would force muscly, bearded, fully transitioned trans men (everyone forgets about them!) into the ladies, or, even more bizarrely, being unable to pee at all on the basis they no longer look female enough despite, legally speaking, being one.
The government has weighed in with the argument in (1) above, where it points out that there are already plenty of common sense exceptions to single sex spaces, a parent taking their kid to the loo, a female masseuse being willing to see a specific male client they trust while being able to turn away others. This is effectively to refute the EHCR's argument that if you allow a trans woman into a female only space, you MUST also allow a man in, a ridiculous situation that would mean, say, a lesbian hiking group would be forced to accept cis men to join them if they decided to accept trans women. An utterly nonsensical position that would effectively force trans people out of public life (in glaring breach of their human rights) as well as creating a 'papers please' society where we'd all have to present our birth certificates before using the bogs.
I would note from (2) that it is clear the intent of the 2010 Equality Act was not to create apartheid or jim crow-esque laws segregating trans people from the rest of society, indeed, this would be in breach of the UK's responsibilities under the Human Rights Act and previous ECtHR judgements.
All of which, sadly, leaves us in a right old muddle, with different bits of different law contradicting each other. The government's intervention in the judicial review against the EHCR should thusly be viewed in that context.
It is arguable that this is the wrong way of clarifying it - the government should step in and say, no, we are clarifying the law to mean the following in regard to trans people, through primary legislation. Instead, they are attempting to clarify through the courts because they want to be seen to be able to distance themselves from the clarification.
However, stripping away all the legal arguments, the judgements, the hundreds of pages of reading you have to do just to stay on top of all of this, I will simply say the following:
...
Common sense needs to prevail here.
The gender critical movement should take the ability - in fact, the right - to discriminate against trans people (usually trans women, everyone forgets the trans men!) for the huge win that it is. It means that, for example, Cyclefree is perfectly within her rights to set up a women's only book club that excludes trans women. Or the Boxing Board of Control is allowed to exclude trans women from female fights. However, it's also about common sense: the necessary and proportionate test of any exclusionary practice means that trans women would be free to pee in peace, or to join a women's only dance class at their local gym, where the gym is happy to have them. The EHCR guidance is the opposite of that - creating a mandatory jim-crow-esque segregation that essentially locks trans people out of public life.
The government's intervention should be viewed in this context. An attempt to restore some sanity to the debate with the inclusion of a necessary and proportionate test to trans exclusion, rather than a blanket ban. They know very well that this is what will happen anyway when it reaches the European Court of Human Rights, so are attempting to clarify this, now. Whether they should be using the courts to do so, or enacting properly written primary legislation to clarify the situation is another matter entirely.
I think you need to look up "begs the question" in a law dictionary.
If an owner wants to allow women and men (which includes men who identify as women) in their facilities then of course they are allowed to do so. That means that any safeguarding laws regarding being sex-neutral must be met, which includes for instance that toilets need to be self-contained units including wash basin behind a lock and not communal.
What they can't do is advertise as women only and allow men in, in flagrant violation of safeguarding regulations for single-sex facilities, and without meeting single-sex regulations.
As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.
As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).
Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?
Building owners are 'generously' allowed to provide non-gender specific provision in addition (IOW, the great majority won't).
Key thing is though that they meet the regulation that the facilities have to be lockable, including wash basin. Unlike communal single-sex facilities.
It makes sense from the owners perspective to tick all those boxes at once.
https://www.ft.com/content/e0cc4893-d1c3-45a4-9e3e-d35cedd4b46d
The only effective things, apart from a change in fashion for a UK destination, is for the government to fulfil its promise to stop the boats, and smash the gangs (how is that getting on by the way?), and/or for virtually 100% of boat etc arrivals to end up elsewhere and a long way away very rapidly. The other effective thing would be to move away from the rule of law, which is where, I suspect, Reform might end up.
An injected chip, programmed with the details of the individual, will detect if the individual is attempting to pass though a forbidden entrance.
This will fire the micro-explosive charges implanted in all citizens that severe the main arteries. It will also contact the police, and organ banks for disposal of the remains.
This thread suggests that Covid is not at all like ordinary coronavirus, or flu, or rhinovirus infection; it's more typical of viruses like EBV etc (which as we discussed recently, seem to be implicated in all manner of other conditions).
New data shows that 3-4 years after infection, people still carry highly cytotoxic spike-specific CD4+ T cells - the kind of long-lasting elite clones usually seen in persistent infections like CMV or HIV🧵
https://x.com/ZdenekVrozina/status/1990177727455039662
https://x.com/andy_buksterlin/status/1990039924045914234?s=20
Which is where the torpedo is detonated considerably below the ship, rather than in contact. This cause the ship to whip up and down - often breaking completely half - due to the cyclic collapse and re-expansion of the gas bubble.
Something similar was the mining of HMS Belfast in WWII - it was a bottom mine, so it produced the effect.
..260. Consequently, transgender people (irrespective of whether they have a GRC) are
protected by the indirect discrimination provisions of the EA 2010 without the need for a
certificated sex reading of the EA 2010, both in respect of any particular disadvantage
suffered by them as a group sharing the characteristic of gender reassignment and, where
members of the sex with which they identify are put at a particular disadvantage, insofar
as they are also put at that disadvantage. Again, this does not entail any practical
disadvantage or involve any discordance between the claim and the individual’s position
in society. On the contrary, the claim will be founded on the facts of a particular shared
disadvantage. Transgender people are also protected from indirect discrimination where
they are put at a particular disadvantage which they share with members of their biological
sex..
How long has the current system been in operation for?
It would be interesting to know for just how long this "severe strain" has been going on for.
Interesting to see in the video how the vertical whiplash threw deck cargo (in this case, an obviously mocked up demo heap of containers) around. And I wonder about the ankles of anyone standing upright.
I don't think I'd ever say that about the trans debate, but I mean it.
It is also very clear that this is an area where the government needs to only do things via well drafted legislation, rather than via the courts.
There is also the question of how much we want the government (and the courts) to be allowed to force private businesses and individuals. My gut instinct is, as always, that government coercian should be kept to a minimum. But I also accept that carries with it certain risks and issues.
The SC judgement[3] does not use the words “toilet” or “restroom”, but does use the words “facilities” twice. Firstly in a discussion of the Sex Discrimination Act, secondly in a discussion of communal accommodation in the EA. In both cases the restriction of toilets to biological sex users is emphasised. Gender-critical lawyers (insert source here) insist that this means that the judgement applies to toilets, trans lawyers insist that case law has already dealt with this (insert source here).
The EHRC interim guidance contains the following passages[2]
- "...13.3.11 A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms which can be used by people of either sex..."
- "...13.3.12 A community group is opening a small advice centre. It decides to provide separate-sex toilets for women and men, and it repurposes the accessible toilet to be used as a mixed-sex toilet for anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their biological sex..."
- "...13.5.5 For example, a trans man might be excluded from the women-only service if the service provider decides..."[1]
So John Lewis would have to change from this "Men, Women, Disabled" to "Men, Women, Gender-Neutral" or in extremis "Men, Women, Disabled, Gender-Neutral".Notes
My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.
All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.
Problem solved. Not rocket science.
In reality, of course, the last men that the gay men would be interested in was the chaps who thought that gay men couldn't control their urges in the presence of non-gay men.
Most of the bars and restaurants I go to which have been refurbished over the last few years seem to be going for this with private individual cubicles with a sink inside or communal sinks serving all of the cubicles.
It’s an expensive refurb/rebuild hence my suggestion for a grace period - most of the buildings in use as shops/restaurants/bars etc will have to reorganise their space at expense and disruption hence time to prepare and save.
There might have to be carve-outs for listed buildings where there can’t be a sensible reconfiguration but I don’t think that will be a huge percentage.
Some were thrown into the deck above, hard enough to *kill*.
Another effect is to smash everything vaguely fragile - with Belfast a lot of cast metal fittings in the fuel system fractured, IIRC.
As in territorial wars, peaceable sharing of territory is rarely possible. Any space occupied by X cannot also be occupied by not-X. Unless a sufficient number are willing to say "it doesn't matter that much", the stable solution is ideological cleansing.
And there's an awful lot of identity tied up with all this, which is always hard to work round because none of us are good at changing our self-understanding.
I wish it weren't like that, but it is. And culture wars tend to only fade away one funeral at a time.
(I don't know what to make of her Oxford experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Wilson )
Like me, the editorial writers see her election as bad for Seattle -- but good for the US as a whole, since they expect it to demonstrate, quickly, socialism's failures. (Wilson, unlike Mamdani in New York, will have a city council controlled by allies.)
For my part, I plan to ask three suburban governments (Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland) to prepare for refugees from Seattle.
Eg is it that you now commit an offence if you use the 'wrong' toilets? Or is it this was always an offence but now it has to be policed and enforced?
I genuinely don't know, do you?
But we also need to protect the vulnerable from the predatory. And there are more predators around than you would like to think.
But as far as buildings, and particularly toilet provision is concerned, the law (in the form of current building regulations) is already very coercive - while at the same time allowing for anti-trans discrimination.
A worst of both worlds position, IMO.
I don't think there's a simple answer to the civil law question, and it will also depend on the particular circumstances.
(All IMO)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp85g86x0zgo