Politicians 'hope' For Women Scotland wins a landmark case on the definition of a woman to avoid a 'messy' battle with campaigners, it has been claimed.
Susan Smith, a director of the gender critical feminist organisation, warned their fight will not go away even if the judgement goes against them.
The UK Supreme Court will deliver its judgement over the long-running row between campaigners and the Scottish Government.
For Women Scotland argue that sex-based protections must only apply to biological women, while the Scottish Government states transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should also be included.
Regardless of the outcome, the consequences will be wide-ranging, with potentially significant ramifications on UK-wide equality legislation.
Ms Smith told The Herald: “If we lose we will be on the doorstep of all the politicians saying ‘you have to sort this out. You can’t go on like this’.
“It becomes a political fight. But I’m not sure if it’s a political fight that politicians really want.
“I think for a lot of them, it would be much simpler if we won, and then it’s all out of their hands, and it’s all really easy.
“If we lost they are going to have to deal with this and there will be a lot of people who want the law changed the other way to turn it into self-ID law.
“It’s going to be messy.”
READ MORE:
Supreme Court decision on definition of ‘woman’ imminent
Verdict expected in case on legal definition of woman
Swinney: SNP ministers were 'entitled' to £20k pay rise
Family construction firms on 'brink of collapse' from 'catastrophic' tax changes
The row dates back to 2018 after the Scottish Government's Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Bill passed through Holyrood.
It aimed to ensure that at least 50% of non-executive members of Scottish public boards were women.
However, it included an amendment which stated a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be included.
While the Act stated the person had to take the decision to undergo the process for the purpose of becoming a woman, it did not require the person to “dress, look or behave” in any particular way.
The candidate does not have to prove whether they met the definition of a woman, however.
Gender critics took the case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh arguing the legislation was beyond Holyrood’s competence.
The case initially failed but campaigners won on appeal, with ministers issuing new guidance that the definition of a woman matched the Equality Act but included a person with a GRC.
An ongoing legal back and forth has landed it in London’s Supreme Court with huge ramifications expected from the landmark ruling.
After the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC) warned the 2010 Equality Act could now be inoperable because of interpretations from public bodies to include self-ID policies, Ms Smith said the law “would have to change” – even if For Women Scotland lose the case.
“It is going to be a headache for politicians because the current government will have to go into an election in the knowledge that they told everyone at the time of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which of course was blocked, that it would not change anything under the Equality Act.
“I think this will be a difficult conversation for some of them, I think they would again rather have it tied up completely.
If the Supreme Court rules in favour of For Women Scotland, trans people fear the case will undermine their rights in their acquired gender.
It would still give people with GRCs protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment but not discrimination on the basis of their acquired sex.
Share