Read on Twitter
Have @scotgov finally acknowledged there is a rights conflict?
As per spokesperson: “The Scottish Government remains committed to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and to do so in way that ensures women’s rights are preserved and protected" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-gender-recognition-process-changes-being-considered-scottish-government-2982768
As per spokesperson: “The Scottish Government remains committed to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and to do so in way that ensures women’s rights are preserved and protected" https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-gender-recognition-process-changes-being-considered-scottish-government-2982768
Of course, this all depends on how "woman" is being defined. As we know, @scotgov has written law that states that being a woman depends on pronouns, names and how your utility bill is addressed. https://twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1299324685990191106?s=20
They have also reserved the right to redefine sex should it ever be included in the hate crome bill. This, @trussliz is another reason we would welcome clarity on protected characteristics in the EqA. https://forwomen.scot/27/08/2020/letter-to-delegated-powers-and-law-reform-committee/#more-2720
During the GRA consultation, @S_A_Somerville was forced to apologise after it emerged that one of the key supporting documents said breast cancer survivors and intersex women had "non normative bodies" which were likened to those of males. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5149172/snp-breast-cancer-patients-id-row-mastectomies/
In other words, the government has previously supported the notion that women with medical conditions are not fully female; however, males, who have undergone no medical transition, can claim to be so.
