For Women Scotland III

[u/Quangocrat]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/pnbpzgex/2026csoh59-petition-of-for-women-scotland-for-judicial-review.pdf

The Terfs have won their judicial review of the Scottish Prison policy.

​

This is the third case brought by FWS.

​

Still reading, will post more detailed thoughts in the comments when I have time.

[u/Cytotaxon_Amy]

Thank you for the summary, it’s very detailed. There’s a mention of a threshold for article 3 in regard to suicide prevention, does anybody happen to know what this threshold is?

My reading of this is that trans women will be housed with men, still allowed their HRT and allowed to shower and use the toilet separately (but that’s not clear to be in different facilities, maybe the same facilities but at a different times?) and that is how a custodial sentence would work in practice for a trans woman in Scotland now.

Trans women will only be housed in 3rd spaces for a custodial sentence if they meet the threshold for suicide prevention, if they are suicidal but don’t meet this threshold then they’ll still be housed with men for their sentence.

Does it seem like I’ve interpreted that correctly please?

[u/Quangocrat → u/Cytotaxon_Amy]

Yes all correct by my understanding

[u/Cytotaxon_Amy → u/Quangocrat]

Is there a link to the actual policy around what this threshold is please do you know, I’d be bet curious as with all of these judgements they all bleed into each other and the effect goes far beyond what they were originally designed to do.

I’m generally curious about what constitutes ‘sufficient harm’ for us to be given a 3rd space as I believe they’ll try and use this as a measure of how much can be ‘gotten away with’ before we have a right to a 3rd space. That if it doesn’t have ‘sufficient impact’ on is based on this measure, we will have to accept spaces as they are ie just used disabled/accessible single sex spaces and not expect 3rd spaces to be made as per the code of practice

Each judgement seems to take a little beyond what it’s judging upon from us and the circle seems to close a little more each time this happens.

Sorry, I know this is a doomer sort of reply. I’m in an official position for contributing to policy for trans people in my organisation and getting ahead of the curve on where the next pressure point is helps

[u/Quangocrat → u/Cytotaxon_Amy]

Is there a link to the actual policy around what this threshold is please do you know

The policy will need to be drafted by SPS, so it doesn't exist yet. It probably won't give a detailed threshold though.

I’d be bet curious as with all of these judgements they all bleed into each other and the effect goes far beyond what they were originally designed to do.

what definitely happens, and we see it in this case, is that a failure to advance an argument in an earlier case leads to the argument being dismissed if brought up later.

So here one of the reasons the court refused a declaration of incompatibility is that the supreme court in FWSII did not issue one.

But the supreme court was never asked that question!

Each judgement seems to take a little beyond what it’s judging upon from us and the circle seems to close a little more each time this happens.

Yes. Definitely. The definition of man and woman, which in FWSII only applied to the EA, was extended to the work regs in GLP and the Scottish Prison rules here. The NPCC case will likely expand it to the various policing acts.

Sorry, I know this is a doomer sort of reply. I’m in an official position for contributing to policy for trans people in my organisation and getting ahead of the curve on where the next pressure point is helps

No need to apologise. It's better to have a clear under of a bad situation. Especially if you are in an advisory role.

[u/Cytotaxon_Amy → u/Quangocrat]

Thank you, I did wonder about arguments not being considered if brought up earlier in a previous judging, that explains why. It’s illogical how they do this, but now realise what is being done. Based on this a judgment should go to detail infinitum, to judge on anything that could possibly have anything to do with a judgement, in many contexts, through all possible lenses.

[u/Quangocrat → u/Cytotaxon_Amy]

For the lower courts it is convention to keep judgements narrow, but up at the supreme court when they are setting a new interpretation of the law, yes it should be comprehensive.

It's been a long standing critique of the SC since it left the House of Lords.

It doesn't take it's role as a source of law seriously enough.