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

exactly.

It sounds like the judge has resigned

Doesn’t step down until April so still a sitting judge. The statement also said stepping down as a full time judge which raises question about whether they intend to work part time. But even if no longer a judge, to launch straight from a role where you are required to be impartial and into political activism in your own interest raises huge questions about whether you were even impartial.

If they didn’t pass, then it wouldn’t be sex based discrimination so why would they need to use sex under the equality act to argue to better pay?

But no one would think this judge is female. Their sex is obvious. For the one in a million that passes you have a point. For all others, the gender reassignment clause protects them, as it should. There is no need to attack women's sex based rights to protect TW. they already have a law which protects them.

It sounds like the judge has resigned so obviously can intervene if the case if permission is granted and if any post contract restrictions perhaps that. However the current legislation is fine as it is (thank God for Theresa May who resisted attempts to change it in England) and there are over 35m biological women in the UK who also have rights that need to be protected particularly from biological men.

The campaign group For Women Scotland are not for trans women (no shit, Sherlock...) and they are not for the huge numbers of women who are trans allies. (Wrong! FWS fights for all women.)

The worst part is that they do not have any such rights. And as for protections, it is already lawful to discriminate against men when providing services or spaces for women. It's just an attempt to whip up feelings of resentment.

Edited to fix formatting.

In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act was introduced as a safeguard for many trans people to be able to live freely, authentically and openly.

Well, that's not true. The whole point of the GRA was to hide a person's sex, not so that they could live 'openly' as a trans person.

If they were perceived as a man then they wouldn't be claiming discrimination for being treated as a woman, would they?

Yes mate. That's why it doesn't happen. HTH

I agree. And most of the laws and practices that have gone against women have been made by men. For example, letting men into women’s prisons, letting men into women’s sports, male gym owners letting men into women’s changing rooms, male health executives letting men into women’s wards, male architects and school leaders deciding to covert the girls and boys toilets into mixed sex.

edit to say: I agree with the transgender person having a say, not that it is anti trans, this is pro-women.

Well, no, that wouldn't always apply, particularly as You Can Always Tell, eh?

The sheer fucking brass neck of that diatribe from the GLP.

What if the ground shifted under your feet? What if a law you’d been relying on for 20 years was under threat and you had no say? What if a campaign was making the case for a change that increased the risk you’d suffer harassment, discrimination and maybe even violence – and you were shut out of the room?

Exactly what happened and is happening to women and girls.

We all deserve to live free from discrimination and harassment. That’s not just a matter of courtesy. It’s a set of protections enshrined in law. In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act was introduced as a safeguard for many trans people to be able to live freely, authentically and openly. It gave trans people the right to legally change their sex.

At the cost of women and girls and their rights to do the same.

But the Supreme Court is now due to hear a case that threatens the freedoms and protections that trans people have relied on for 20 years. And this case could be heard with no trans people in the room – with no reference to the devastating effect it could have on their lives.

Like what happened/is happening to women and girls.

The campaign group For Women Scotland are not for trans women and they are not for the huge numbers of women who are trans allies.

They are for the huge number of women, which all polls show are the majority of women, who want their rights and protections back.

We all deserve to live free from discrimination and harassment. That’s not just a matter of courtesy. It’s a set of protections enshrined in law.
It is beyond contemplation that these questions could be decided by the Supreme Court, and argued by those who want to strip trans people of their protections, without hearing from the trans people themselves.

Like what happened/is happening to women and girls.

It would seem there is a huge conflict of interest here.

I too want to be treated like a woman in all aspects, except pay, where I’d like to be treated like a man. What kind of certificate do I have to sign up to? Happy to do hormone testing too, I’m a rule follower by and large.

I am an expert, on account of being one of those old-fashioned women (yawn). Yup, one of them fuckin dinosaurs.

I might seek to intervene. After all, who could provide the court with more expertise at womanning than me?!

Isn't it wonderful how a woman is the youngest ever person appointed to the post! Such progress! 😬

The application to intervene, assuming one has been made, and the comments in the Guardian are all part of a performance of victimhood, IMO.

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/three-is/

'When carrying out their judicial function judges must be free of any improper influence, such as pressure by individual litigants, commercial interests, the media, politicians, and their own self-interest. They must not allow potential public or media responses to skew their decision-making.'

'Judges strive to ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, in their personal impartiality and that of the judiciary.It follows that judges should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that could result in reasonable apprehension of bias or would result in a conflict of interest. This may involve refraining from sitting in a case where they have a close family relationship with a litigant or avoiding involvement with a political party, in such a way as to give the appearance of political bias. They should also avoid taking part in public demonstrations which might diminish their authority as a judge or create a perception of bias in subsequent cases.'

'...they must accept that the nature of their office exposes them to considerable scrutiny and puts constraints on their behaviour which other people may not experience. They should avoid situations which might reasonably lower respect for their judicial office or might cast doubt upon their impartiality as judges. They must also avoid situations which might expose them to charges of hypocrisy by reason of things done in their private life.'

I did think that McCloud seems not to be upholding the impartiality that judges are obliged to.

Joanna Cherry KC also questions it:

'This raises serious questions over judicial impartiality. The judge in question is reported to be resigning as a full-timer “in April”, the implication being that they will continue to sit as a part-timer.'

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1773272584596893729

Surely that is the whole point of joining clubs like the Garrick? To create bias to support your selection?

And at least they won’t be subject to the terrible misgendering that’s apparently so prolific everyone needs pronoun badges.

“No, no, women have no right to define themselves to protect their rights because then it would exclude ME!”

tough shit

But imagine how affirming!

Just as an aside Sarah Phillimore has shared results on complaint against her misgendering.
https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1772713519399440700?t=VYXBuB-_RpgGyB0d-sN2YA&s=19

A very interesting dissonance is brewing. My regulator confirms it is not a regulatory matter if I refer to male persons as ‘he’, noting that Article 10 requires a high degree of protection.

And yet @policescotland will think differently?

We shall see. One might think we all have better things to be doing.

I wonder if the good judge is a member of the Garrick.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/28/garrick-club-bias-selecting-judges-bar-council-warning