Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Part 2 of afternoon of FWS appeal:

[Missed 5 minutes]

RC: I've already made subs on pregnancy and I do place emphasis on because of pregnancy. Not sure I need to say anything about implied appeal.

Not quite sure where AN ended up on that ground. The point I make is that GRA and EA address different purposes. The GRA as we know prescribes circumstance and effect of AG and EA is general equality measure

I do take issue with proposition that GRA is between state and individual. Obtaining a GRC goes to the heart of a person's identity. It has effect for all purposes that the persons becomes that of the acquired gender. That is not simply a beaurocratic or administrative provision

Hardly suprising that one's identity is important and right to private life. This court is being provided with an intervention by Sex Matters limited. 2 points in it. 1st is that reclaimers do not have challenge to legislation.

So far as intervention is concerned there's much said about various rights of those who describe themselves as actual women or men. But there is strikingly no acknowledgement of the impact on persons who have been issued full GRC and their rights

In any event this court is not I'm a position to assess compatibility of 2018 act in the abstract. There's no basis provided for it to do so. If couslrse in another case eif any person was of view their partic circumstances breached convention rights they can challenge that

I'd caution this court in saying actual sex I'd say same about convention rights.
J: some interest perhaps that in subs of interveners it may only be resolved by amendments

RC: that is not something for this court. Obviously
J: they say they would very much favour the court expressing a view
RC: this court ought to vonstrue meaning of woman in 2018 act but no future than that

RC: they do evidence examples of contrary provision obtained in other enactments. Therefore GRA would apply but that's all I can say about other statutes so far as construction of 'woman' and more particularly if SG acted unlawfully in guidance

And with that comment, unless anything else I renew my motion this should be refused

[Nothing from judges]
J: we're..
AN: couple of points I'd like to reply
J: briefly
AN: first is proper interpretation of schedule 3 - the 'carve out'

AN: i don't think it stands up to the meaning ascribed to by court comments. [Reads]

AN: so provisions are different to each sex. I say that that exception can only make sense if sex means actual sex rather than SG certificated sex. If certificated sex is included then what you're doing and justify

would be excluding male with GRC, a kid of female, in order to keep separate services for women. Think of women only wards. Fact is if u exclude male with GRC then para 28 potentially applies that's not GR discrim.

AN: but you can only do that by excluding that male with GRC. Its rationally connected to keeping ward same sex. What SG are doing isn't rational. Only makes sense if sex means actual sex. In which case excluding male with GRC you are achieving single sex ward.

[Missed - onto permanency]

There was no probation in GRA in person having a child and no requirement not to have child.

One also has to bear in mind that GRR Scotland bill , which they're continuing to challenge, radically changes the GRA provisions that RC relied on. Takes away diagnosis of GD or living or presenting. Takes away judgement by specialist panel

That's why it's all about self id. [Reads 'Scottish bill changes cohort of people - effect of bill is no control in including]

[On RC's points on pregnancy]
It seemed like throwing trans men under a bus.

The very fact that section 7 refers to physiology of sex is again pointing to reality of sex. You can only change sex if you know you're sex in the first place. All it talks about it process willing to undergo so GRC doesn't say anything at all for purposes of section 7

You can only get GRC if you have PC of GR. (Missed) The EA was never amended in that way.

Explanatory notes were referred to saying [reads]

That's section 27, para 29 says [reads] so once again 93 counts and we get nothing from Scottish ministers that why 9 section does not apply in EA

When the higher cases come about regulation and pregnancy of pregnant men all they do is hold up their hands and its all so complicated.

[It is far too fast to follow and the sound is terrible]

It's a zero sum game and if you're giving
J: just for sake of accuracy that wasn't my suggestion

AN: Sorry my lord. Wasn't my understand of RC but might have changed on her feet. It's a zero sum game that some men get protections women get but females lost protections women get.
The lovers are women. As always.
Men get more rights

The idea that men should also be able to benefit bc they can get a certificate is more than a little bit ironic. Women end up being the lovers again and men get more. That's why this motion should be upheld.

J: court obliged to parties for subs. We will issue decision in writing

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll