LGBT groups have criticised the "distressing" court ruling on the Scottish Government's gender reform Bill.
On Friday (December 8) the Court of Session judged the UK Government was within its rights to effectively veto the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, despite it being approved by MSPs at Holyrood.
The Bill, which seeks to make it easier for transgender people to be legally recognised in their acquired gender, was blocked by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack using a Section 35 order.
Read more: Scotland's gender reform court battle, explained
In response, Humza Yousaf launched a legal challenge against the UK Government, and said the Scottish Government's defeat was a "dark day for devolution".
Now, the First Minister is facing a decision on whether to appeal the ruling at the Court's Inner House, and potentially the Supreme Court.
LGBT Youth Scotland said the decision by Judge Lady Haldane was "deeply distressing" and disregards "years of advocacy" for a fairer society.
Dr Mhairi Crawford, chief executive at the charity, said: “The obstructing of simple administrative changes will massively impact trans young people, who should have the right to live as themselves without scrutiny.
“We call on the Scottish Government to stay resolute in their ambition to ensure the best outcome for trans young people by swiftly challenging this ruling. No law should deny individuals, especially young people, the right to gain legal gender recognition aligning with their identity.
“Everyone should have the right to live their lives, regardless of the background, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Read more: Gender reform court case: Not just a defeat, a demolition job
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has proved one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever go before Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government proposed changes to the process for trans people to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate, which enables them to be issued with a new birth certificate under their acquired gender.
It would streamline the current process - which has been described as "lengthy and intrusive" - including cutting the time a person has to live in their acquired gender from two years to three months, and changing the minimum age of applicants from 18 to 16.
However, gender-critical feminist groups have raised concerns about the impact on women's rights, particularly on replacing a medical diagnosis for gender dysphoria with self declaration, also known as self-ID.
A spokesperson for the LGBT Youth Scotland Trans Right’s Youth Commission said: “We all want to be seen for who we are, both by the law and those we love; however, this is something that is a struggle for trans people.
“Gender recognition reform seeks to lift this weight off our shoulders, and it is incredibly disheartening and upsetting to hear the court ruling. We hope that with time this will be realised, allowing all of us to be equally respected.”
Stonewall also spoke out against the Court of Session ruling, saying it means "more uncertainty" for trans people in Scotland.
In a statement, the LGBT charity said: "We’re disappointed that the Court of Session in Scotland has found in favour of the UK Government’s unprecedented decision to use Section 35 to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill from Royal Assent.
"This Bill was one of the most debated in the Scottish Parliament’s history and was passed by a resounding majority of MSPs drawn from all major Scottish parties.
Read more: Humza Yousaf urged not to add to £230,000 Bill after gender reform court defeat
"This unfortunately means more uncertainty for trans people in Scotland, who will now be waiting once again, to see whether they will be able to have their gender legally recognised through a process that is in line with leading nations like Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.
"Whatever happens next in discussions with the UK and Scottish Governments on this matter, Stonewall will continue to press all administrations to make progress on LGBTQ+ rights in line with leading international practice."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article