Transgender Judge Seeks Leave To Intervene in FWS Case re Legal Definition of Woman

Next 2.

I'll give it a go! First 2 - MN has switched the order ...

Sarah Phillimore has published some correspondence she's received from McCloud.

I'm really surprised to see a judge behave like this.

https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1773253067640615012

Is that ... is that usual?

Thank you. And, oh that is so ridiculous 😡

This case is actually only indirectly about the EA - it was directly about the Gender representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act. The result of the previous FWR cases meant an amendment was passed this week that under that act ‘women’ is defined as women or men with a GRC. Previously ‘women’ was defined as women and any man who identified as a woman as evidenced by a female name on a gas bill that you weren’t allowed to ask to see. In its original (unlawful) form a public board could appoint any man who self ID as a woman to enable ‘gender balance’, so a board could be made up entirely of men without a GRC. Now it can be made up entirely of men so long as half have a GRC. So a male GRC-holder gets the benefit of a female ‘place’, whereas a non-GRC holder wouldn’t. FWR says women should mean women so a public board is made up half of men and half of women.

Can you tell me what benefits a GRC-holder enjoys that a non GRC-holder does not? The example in the Guardian story was about equal pay. But, if a non GRC-holder is paid less than another man, he can claim direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. So, still protected! It was such a rubbish example, and yet you'd think they'd give their very best example.

This judge has a GRC. Self ID is not actually here. In law the previous FWR judgement ruled female sex in the EA only includes men with a GRC. Men without a GRC are still men in law. Though it also suggested that this was inconsistent and in parts of the EA men with a GRC were legally men in relation to the EA. This judge wants to still be counted as female under the EA and if FWR win they won’t be.

Can anyone explain why this Judge even cares about the GRC, or what the point is of a GRC any more? We now have tax and pensions equality between the sexes, and same-sex marriage, so that's several reasons out of the window. And the EA2010 protects trans people from discrimination irrespective of whether they have a GRC or not. From my various run-ins with @DadJoke I get the impression that he and I agree that this protection is every bit as good for non-GRC holders, albeit calculated slightly differently in terms of whether the discrimination is direct, indirect, or perceptive. In short, self-ID is already here.

And yet, obviously I am missing something, because this is an actual Judge, who must understand this stuff! What am I missing?

And 'for many trans people'? The GRA was intended for use by a tiny number of people with severe dysphoria, it certainly was not introduced so loads of transIDing people could 'live freely, authentically and openly'. That isn't what it was intended to do, and to this day we are still told GRCs are held by such a small number of people that they really don't matter or impinge on anyone else's rights. It's yet more having cake, eating cake, and keeping the rest of the cake just in case.

Autocorrect apparently had different ideas Sinner…

The pensions case is different IMO. It's from an employment tribunal, and I'm sure we all recognise the right to take your employer to ET. This is intervening in a case that is about interpretation of law as passed by Parliament. Precisely the kind of thing a judge interprets supposedly dispassionately and impartially.

Well, actually, McCloud has taken the state to court before, while a judge. And won. Hence the reasonably well known ‘McCloud remedy’ which is benefiting many many other people (NHS employees, teachers etc etc).

Another grift for the Good Law Project, who will once again take money from unwitting supporters to fight this utterly pointless cause.

Got to keep the fox basher in kimonos though, eh?

But imagine how affirming!

I doubt there is anyone who doesn't know that "Victoria" isn't a woman.

It is 28 March and after the bank holiday weekend we are into April so may be this fundraising is when no more cases are to be heard - I don't know.

McCloud is also now openly fundraising on Linkedin for financial support to make this application ... while still sitting as a full time judge. It appears that no control whatsoever is exercised over a judge once they've announced they are standing down.

https://twitter.com/anyabike/status/1773317841082618193?t=WUgxBOJ4CSR1amzxXV2oTg&s=19

literalviolence · Today 16:59

Yep. That judge is a massive bigot who should not be trusted to run a corner shop let alone anything with more influence.

And them obviously lacks the self awareness to see that they is highly partial. Even though the barrister's governing body has told Sarah Phillimore that she doesn't have to use "preferred pronouns," I don't want to mister gender McCloud here.

I don't understand this. I've read that, in the 90s, doctors realised that there was psychological relief in transitioning even for non-passing individuals, whom previously they'd discouraged from going ahead. Of course they might have had other - less pure - motives, but the net effect either way would be an increase in the blatantly non-passing population. How does the GRA help them?

Yep. That judge is a massive bigot who should not be trusted to run a corner shop let alone anything with more influence.

Wow https://twitter.com/standardby4/with_replies?s=21&t=5erRL7l-zLLP5zPT3HWvHw

Some "women" have all the luck!

McCloud is still a judge and is outlining plans to become directly involved in litigation against the state. While still a judge. When after not a FT judge, could still be a PT judge. Move along, nothing to see here.

I think this is the 'having one's cake while eating it and making sure nobody else is allowed any cake' argument.