Latest news with #MarionCalder
Scottish Sun
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of ‘woman'
It comes after a three-year battle from feminist campaigners FOOT THE BILL Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of 'woman' THE Scottish Government has been ordered to cough up costs to feminist campaigners after losing a high-profile legal fight over the definition of a woman. Taxpayers are set to foot the bill, with For Women Scotland (FWS) expecting to recover around £250,000 of the £417,000 spent on the gruelling three-year court battle. Advertisement 4 Marion Calder, right, and Susan Smith, left, from For Women Scotland, celebrate outside after the U.K. Supreme Court Credit: AP 4 A court order has ruled the Scottish Government must pay FWS's costs and expenses Credit: Rex 4 The decision has sparked outrage amongst transgender communities Credit: Lesley Martin 2025 A court order issued on Tuesday confirmed the payout, which covers expenses from both the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court. Last month, FWS emerged victorious when five Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the Equality Act defines a 'woman' as based on biological sex – a major blow to the Scottish Government's stance. The ruling also confirmed that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex under the Equality Act. The legal saga began in 2017 when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, designed to boost female representation. Advertisement The legislation controversially included trans women – even those without a GRC – under the definition of 'women.' Outraged by the move, FWS argued the definition clashed with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. Despite an initial defeat, they won on appeal in 2022, with judges declaring that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government revised its guidance, while claiming GRC holders change their legal sex. Advertisement FWS made another legal challenge, insisting that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex – a position now upheld by the Supreme Court. Today's order states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. The Scottish Conservative Party previously revealed with a Freedom of Information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated FWS's judicial review. Advertisement And former SNP MP Joanna Cherry wrote on X, said the order: 'underlines the clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
LeMonde
24-05-2025
- Politics
- LeMonde
'What is a woman?': Court ruling reopens the 'gender war' in the UK
The sun was shining and the smiles were wide. On April 16, in front of the UK Supreme Court – a neo-Gothic architectural gem across from the Palace of Westminster – Susan Smith and Marion Calder, two founders of the group For Women Scotland, celebrated their victory. Surrounded by photographers, they toasted and then sang their rallying song, "For Women's Rights," to the tune of the famous Scottish melody "Auld Lang Syne." After five years of legal battles with the Scottish government, the country's highest court ruled in favor of these so-called "gender critical" feminist activists, who believe gender is not a perception but a biological reality, by offering a definitive answer to a seemingly basic question: "What is a woman?" The Equality Act 2010, the country's main anti-discrimination law, had not, until now, defined the term "woman." In its April 16 decision, which carries the force of law, the Supreme Court restricted the definition to "biological sex." The court rejected the previously prevailing interpretation that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate – which legally acknowledges their change of gender – are also considered women and therefore entitled to access women-only spaces such as toilets, locker rooms or prisons. "This is a victory for common sense," declared the founders of For Women Scotland after the hearing, surrounded by banners in purple and green – the colors of the suffragettes, those early 20 th -century campaigners for women's right to vote, whose memory remains cherished in the country.
Glasgow Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Survey suggests most people think Supreme Court gender ruling was right
Polling for the Sex Matters charity also suggested that almost three quarters of those asked felt the right decision had been made by some sporting bodies in banning transgender women from its female competitions. The organisation commissioned YouGov to survey 2,106 adults online in Great Britain earlier this month, following the April ruling. The Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, following a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland (Lucy North/PA) Almost two thirds (63%) of those surveyed said they believed the Supreme Court had made the right decision, while just over half (52%) said the ruling has made the law around women's rights and how they apply to transgender people clear. While 13% said the ruling would have a positive impact on them and 6% said it would be negative, more than three quarters of people (77%) said the ruling would make no real difference to them. Following the ruling, English and Scottish governing bodies banned transgender women from the competitive female football game, while they were also banned from competitive women's and girl's cricket in England and Wales. The survey suggested 74% of those surveyed felt these were the right decisions, while 12% disagreed and 14% said they did not know. On the question of toilets, around a fifth of people felt transgender men and women should use whichever facilities they prefer, while around two fifths said unisex toilets should be used. Asked about which toilets transgender people should use, a fifth of those surveyed felt transgender women should use the men's toilets, while 14% said they should use the women's toilets. Some 17% said transgender men should use the men's toilets and the same proportion said they should use the women's toilets. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said the 'logical consequence of the judgment' and new equalities watchdog guidance was that people will have to use toilets, changing rooms and other facilities of their biological sex. But he added that there would not be 'toilet police'. The equalities watchdog, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets. A more detailed code of practice is expected from the EHRC to be put forward for ministerial approval by June. Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step of a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'. Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. But Susan Smith, from FWS, said the Sex Matters survey results showed that 'the more governments push gender identity ideology, the more failings are revealed which strengthens public opposition'. She said: 'For all the noise created by activists in recent weeks, this polling indicates that most people believe that women's human rights matter and that the court acted correctly in determining that robust, clear definitions were critical to ensuring that lesbians, and gay men were not sacrificed or redefined in law. 'We are pleased that there is evidence of heightened awareness of the case in Scotland in particular, which bears out our belief that the more governments push gender identity ideology, the more failings are revealed which strengthens public opposition.' Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters said the fact a majority in the survey said they believe the ruling had made the law around women's rights and how they apply to transgender people clear means 'there is no justification for leaders to kick the can down the road by claiming 'confusion' and the need to wait for further guidance before the law can be implemented'. :: Figures in the survey were weighted to be representative of GB adults.
South Wales Argus
18-05-2025
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Survey suggests most people think Supreme Court gender ruling was right
Polling for the Sex Matters charity also suggested that almost three quarters of those asked felt the right decision had been made by some sporting bodies in banning transgender women from its female competitions. The organisation commissioned YouGov to survey 2,106 adults online in Great Britain earlier this month, following the April ruling. The Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, following a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland (Lucy North/PA) Almost two thirds (63%) of those surveyed said they believed the Supreme Court had made the right decision, while just over half (52%) said the ruling has made the law around women's rights and how they apply to transgender people clear. While 13% said the ruling would have a positive impact on them and 6% said it would be negative, more than three quarters of people (77%) said the ruling would make no real difference to them. Following the ruling, English and Scottish governing bodies banned transgender women from the competitive female football game, while they were also banned from competitive women's and girl's cricket in England and Wales. The survey suggested 74% of those surveyed felt these were the right decisions, while 12% disagreed and 14% said they did not know. On the question of toilets, around a fifth of people felt transgender men and women should use whichever facilities they prefer, while around two fifths said unisex toilets should be used. Asked about which toilets transgender people should use, a fifth of those surveyed felt transgender women should use the men's toilets, while 14% said they should use the women's toilets. Some 17% said transgender men should use the men's toilets and the same proportion said they should use the women's toilets. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said the 'logical consequence of the judgment' and new equalities watchdog guidance was that people will have to use toilets, changing rooms and other facilities of their biological sex. But he added that there would not be 'toilet police'. The equalities watchdog, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets. A more detailed code of practice is expected from the EHRC to be put forward for ministerial approval by June. Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step of a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'. Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. But Susan Smith, from FWS, said the Sex Matters survey results showed that 'the more governments push gender identity ideology, the more failings are revealed which strengthens public opposition'. She said: 'For all the noise created by activists in recent weeks, this polling indicates that most people believe that women's human rights matter and that the court acted correctly in determining that robust, clear definitions were critical to ensuring that lesbians, and gay men were not sacrificed or redefined in law. 'We are pleased that there is evidence of heightened awareness of the case in Scotland in particular, which bears out our belief that the more governments push gender identity ideology, the more failings are revealed which strengthens public opposition.' Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters said the fact a majority in the survey said they believe the ruling had made the law around women's rights and how they apply to transgender people clear means 'there is no justification for leaders to kick the can down the road by claiming 'confusion' and the need to wait for further guidance before the law can be implemented'. :: Figures in the survey were weighted to be representative of GB adults.
The Herald Scotland
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court judgment on trans rights was not a win for women
The judgment at the Supreme Court achieved nothing in the bid for progress for women's rights and equality. It has dealt with none of the most pressing concerns and risks facing women in Scotland today. And feminists know this, and they know too what is at further risk. Thousands, if not millions, of feminists are appalled by what has just happened. Women being, once again, reduced to biological sex and reproductive capability is a grim leap back in time, undoing decades of the work of those who came before us. Sadly, these feminists are not the ones being given the media spotlight this week, despite their scale and strength. Nobody won anything at the Supreme Court. Susan Smith and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland celebrate their victory outside the court (Image: free) The judgment said that for the purposes of the Equality Act 'sex' in the Act refers to 'biological sex'. It did not in fact generally define women by this, however this is the narrative that is being spun, and celebrated in some corners of the media and amongst small and loud groups of gender critical activists. I do not refer to this group as feminists, and for good reason. Feminism fights for the rights of women and girls to be everything they want to be, with the freedom to decipher their own future. Feminism recognises and knows sexism and the many guises of misogyny and the continued patriarchal control over their lives. Feminism recognises the threat of gender-based violence and its likely perpetrators and knows exactly where to point that finger. Feminism understands the need for all who are vulnerable to have a safe space to turn to – safety from abuse, their abusers, and further harm – and wants this for all women. Feminism fights for the protection, equality and human rights of those who are most marginalised. Feminism recognises privilege, and who they need to lift up. Feminism recognises equity, fairness and justice and who has access to none. A win for feminism would have seen a change or interpretation in legislation or the law that saw positive progress on the most pressing concerns for feminists in Scotland and internationally: Inequality in the workplace, access to work and to benefits, racial injustice – felt acutely by women of colour – gender based violence and a push for justice to be enacted on those most likely to commit it, horrendously inadequate healthcare and a lack of funding and research into the most serious of women's health concerns, threat to reproductive rights, access to education, food insecurity, poverty, carers' rights and the burden of care and the barriers faced by women supporting families, climate change and its implications for women, unequal representation, discriminatory social and political institutions, human trafficking, limited freedom of movement, threats and risks in migration, immigration and in seeking refuge, discrimination based on disability, lack of adequate support for poor mental health, digital divide, digital poverty and digital inclusion, online harassment, unpaid labour, inadequate maternal healthcare, period poverty – the list goes on… Read more This judgement did nothing to better any of these dire circumstances. Nothing. It is no win, for anyone. Feminism is not exclusionary, it does not require proof of womanhood, it does not require women to look any certain way. Living as a woman means experiencing sexism, misogyny, violence and derision regardless of what body parts, chromosomes or gametes you have, regardless of your body, how you dress, how you carry yourself, where you're from or how much money you have. Feminism recognises this. Misogyny derides women, femininity, womanhood. Misogyny subjects women to harassment, violence, poverty, illness. This judgement has done nothing to change that. Biological determinism being hailed as a win for feminism is a massive knock back to the feminist movement. If our entire being can be determined by our anatomy as observed at birth, and as such in a binary way, then we have all lost, painfully. Being boxed in to a binary progresses us nowhere, it shoves us violently backwards. It can only serve to limit women. This is a patriarchal dream; this is not women's liberation. Feminists, allies, women are not being heard. They are not celebrating now as there is nothing to celebrate. Instead, they took to the streets in despair and in anger, they saw this as the loss it was. They want real action, real progress, that means something, and that benefits women. This was not it. This was not a win for feminism. Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy, CEO, Equality Network
