'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'

Hayden does indeed have a pending court case against Mumsnet Limited. It is set to be a most interesting case.

Hayden wanted to take out a lawsuit claiming monetary damages against the MN user "ALittleHelp18" for exposing certain things Hayden did not want exposed, and Hayden got a court order to force Mumsnet to reveal the user's details. Mumsnet complied, of course.

But the user had given MN false details and, without a name and address, Hayden was unable to issue the suit. The user had given MN Hayden's former name and former address. Breathtakingly naughty.

So Hayden decided to sue Mumsnet for hosting the posts by "ALittleHelp18". Money damages are sought.

Hayden opposes self ID because Hayden has managed to obtain a GRC. However, as ScapaFlo hinted, this is currently the subject of controversy and possible investigation because during the two year qualifying period Hayden was using both the new name and the deadname, which is not allowed. There is also another problem: one of the "sponsors" who wrote a legal "witness statement" in support of the GRC was a family member, which is also firmly against the rules.

Hayden posted perfectly openly on Reddit and in Hayden's own name about how incredibly easy and quick it was to get a GRC. (And yet one complaint we hear constantly from trans people is how difficult, complicated, time-consuming, expensive and invasive it is to get one!)

Hayden wrote:

"I submitted my application on 9 April 2018, got a hearing on 2 May 2018, and my GRC was dated 9 May 2018. The process in Leicester is so efficient. I work in the legal profession [sic] and I have never known any part of HMCTS to be as efficient and professional as the admin people at Leicester GRP!

I arranged my "main" report from Dr Penny Lenihan. Like you my "secondary" report was from my GP, a tick box exercise with a bill for £28! The key to navigating the GRP successfully and quickly is to make sure you have the evidence that they want to see! So documents from the start of your "official" transition, some in between, and a few dated very recently! Passport, driving licence, and academic certificates are evidential "gold". I also padded out my application with a witness statement from myself, as well as a family member who is a close friend. The process is not laborious per se but just a little admin intensive. Get the bureaucracy right and the system can be a 'cake walk' IMO!

Oh yes I had my Charing Cross GIC appointment on 8 June 2018. I had been on hormones privately at that point for years. My medical professional asks, "What evidence have you got to show you've been living in role?"

My reply, "I think you'll find my GRC actually proves that as I need at least 2 years of evidence to get one!"

So there you have it, straight from Hayden's keyboard to Reddit.

With regard to suing MN, an anon female lawyer said:

"Few things cause me more misery and rage than people using the law in a malicious attempt to frighten people and get their own way.

Gender critical women are on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Mumsnet and more, discussing gender and the misogyny of trans activism etc and we are well within our rights to do so. What Stephanie has done is characterise disagreement & the refusal to bow to compelled speech as harassment... How is it harrassment. Logging in and clicking the feminism threads are not unavoidable actions.

Hayden seems to have set themselves up as a public figure and surely public criticism and appraisal comes with that role. From that angle, it's hard for me to see such a case succeeding."

(Sorry I cannot find a link to the thread but it was posted in Nov 2018.)

Really, please stop giving this person exposure. Best ignored.....

When it comes to all-women shortlists it only legally applies to positions in parliament. (Eg the most well known is "women's officer" which typically leads to other positions).

Anyone can apply for women's officer but it's legal to recruit "women only". Those on the shortlist will be voted in by members. Men who self identify as women but are legally men can also apply, but if they get onto the shortlist and gain the role, it will be considered discriminatory against other (legal) men who were not able to be on the shortlist because the role asked for women only.
You can't ask for men/women only recruits in the private sector. Obviously discrimination does happen but you can't be blatant about it.

Which reminds me, what ever is happening with the Jennifer Jane's Vs the Labour Party case?

Charliethefeminist

Thank you, yes got it. I always find I look at discrimination backwards.

You're not allowed to discriminate against men, except (say) on an all women shortlist.

So you wouldn't be leaving the (GRC protected) transwoman off on the basis that you're allowed to discriminate against men.

Do you have to specify why you leave someone off an all women shortlist? I'm guessing it's down to normal competences, is it? Which again, would favour those born male of course.

You are right but ironically, on AWS, the people who are considered discriminated against, under the law, are other men.

It's infuriating that it's only ever women who are affected by this. Sex discrimination was brought into effect because women were discriminated against. Not men.

Trans Ideology adversely affects women, not men.

On the all woman shortlists, allowing tw is not illegal through discrimination against women. They're illegal (allegedly etc) by discriminating against men.

Ie some men (legally men through having no GRC) are allowed to do something (be on an all woman shortlist) which other men aren't allowed to do.

That's discriminatory. This is my understanding of it.

Woah. How would that go in court. It's like a catch 22.

Did you treat them this way because you thought they were female? YES - Sex discrimination, guilty.

Did you treat them this way because you thought they WEREN'T female? Yes - gender reassignment discrimination, guilty.

I don't know the answer but my mind is blown.

It's sort of doing my head in. Because, let's take all women shortlists. Say you want them remain actually female. And you say a transwoman can't be on it, but not because they're a woman, but because they're not a woman. And even though the equality act says they are, that's not the basis on which you are excluding them.

They definitively come under their 'acquired gender' in terms of the protected characteristics if they have a GRC.

Thanks charlie One more question if I may?

I'm trying to imagine a situation where a transwoman would be discriminated against on the basis that they are a woman. Would that only ever happen if the person doing this discriminating truly thought they were female?

We know how covert this entire thing has been even going back to the 70s. Stephen Whittle's posts on here were very interesting. Everything being done behind closed doors influencing the GRA.

Are we expected to believe that this group of people have chosen Hayden as their leader for legal battles? It seemed more as if they were trying to keep their influence on public policy a bit more under wraps.

Hayden the gatekeeper, who'd have thunk it. And with Harrop apologising for being a homosexual male who's attracted to other homosexual males, they almost appear to be quite the pair of transphobes.

Someone who is male and has no GRC would have to make a claim of harassment over being called 'he', I believe.

They definitively come under their 'acquired gender' in terms of the protected characteristics if they have a GRC.

That doesn't mean the law says they're women, or considers them to be women. The Equality Act 2010 specifically acknowledges they aren't women by allowing exceptions.

I'd like to know what it is that Mumsnet said to make this happen.

Presumably it's because they let Karen white and other infamous people be called "he".

I'm guessing this will be about the Equalities Act not saying what Hayden would like it to say and that having been stated on MN at some point.

Personally, I'd like to know what it is that Mumsnet said to make this happen. Because it's quite straightforward that with a GRC you do get the protected characteristic of woman.

That's a different thing to saying they don't come under their new sex marker for their protected characteristic status. Once they have a GRC, they do.

That's how I understand it Charlie.

But there are times when they can be discriminated against, even with a GRC, isn't that right? In which case does the law still not consider them exactly the same as women?

I realise that's not the same as having the protected characteristic of women though.

They are considered men by the law. The law states that they should be treated for all purposes as their 'acquired gender', not that they are the acquired gender. The single sex exemptions confirm that they are considered by the law to be men.

That's a different thing to saying they don't come under their new sex marker for their protected characteristic status. Once they have a GRC, they do.

Isn’t Hayden arguing against Self-ID?

Exactly. Which I imagine, might well prove rather problematic. Depending on which way you look at it, it's a win-win for women tho.

And didn't they obtain their cert by not-very-transparent means? So circumnavigating the actual law?

What kind of batshittery is this? Any legal bods here? If Hayden successfully argues in the court of rainbows and unicorns that transwomen are women if they have a GRC only, doesn’t that mean that if they DON’T have a GRC, they can’t be considered women, legally? Isn’t Hayden arguing against Self-ID?

Wanker.

I think "steps are being taken" is weird-arse passive voice newspeak for "I am trying to manipulate Mumsnet into saying something I can try to take them to court for in order go feed my unending need for attention,"

I'm guessing that Steph ignored the advice to "go well"