Trans identifying male Harriet Haynes loses court case to play in women's pool

Who is paying for the appeal?

obviously the lawyers would be delighted.

Not a chance is there. What was going to happen after the SC ruling was not something i thought about at the time. But on reflection it is entirely expected that there will be numerous failed attempts to get around the ruling, at first i thought it was very tiresome. Given the misery the trans movement has inflicted on women and children, I think fuck it, AND NOW SEE IT AS A LAUGH A MINUTE.

Spiteful that may be, but i do not care.

Details of the appeal process are here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-court-of-appeal-civil-division#ask-for-permission-to-appeal

The judge will only grant you permission to appeal if either:

• you have a real chance of success
• there’s another very strong reason why the appeal should be heard

Oh, is it just so they can pretend to do it and then blame the legal system when they can’t? Seems about par for the course.

They need permission to appeal, first.

This seems to be a very odd case to stake their all on. It seems to be almost devoid of merit. But IANAL and they are very clever people, allegedly.

They have a huge investment in getting the FWS limited. Particularly Jane Russel.

Are the pronouns after RMW there for a reason?

He's as deluded here as he is in every other aspect of his life! Men really don't like being told no, do they 😂

Bring it on, I say!

Well, with a brains trust like that the appeal can't fail, surely? 😂

Screenshot

They are going to appeal!!!

x.com/PinchesLynne/status/1958911275943002239?t=PauWLNA3lSPbwcmsRh-SSA&s=19

This was a massive judgement document for County Court. But he chose to give thorough commentary on all the arguments, then said at the end that the claim failed at the first hurdle because the claim was gender reassignment discrimination, which failed because of the meaning of female/woman as per FWS ruling.

What was revealing is the arguments Jane Russell, is going to put forward in the Peggie case, which is shown in this judgement to be illogical.

He also addressed the grounds of appeal which were zippo

happy days.

Yes, exactly.

as they do not prevent a trans man from taking part in a women’s competition.

What about a transman who's dosing herself with T? Should be in line with normal doping regs, presumably?

This is a peculiar part of his ruling. Elsewhere he accepts the following argument made by the defense:

That, she argued, is discrimination on grounds of sex, not gender reassignment: the Defendants’ rules do not involve any discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, as they do not prevent a trans man from taking part in a women’s competition.

If you were to apply the same reasoning you would say that:

Encouraging greater female participation is a clearly legitimate aim. I do not accept, however, that (were it not for the need to achieve fairness) excluding trans women men from female competitions would be a proportionate means of achieving it.

But it's hard to understand why it would not be proportional to exclude a certain type of men, transwomen, simply on the grounds that they are men. Perhaps he's splitting hairs and that's really what he meant, i.e. it's not the trans-ness but the maleness. But obviously if a Pete the Plumber argument were put to him it couldn't be denied that any participatory argument that applies to men would also apply to transwomen.

Adding, he also strongly discounted the possibility that any interpretation of the SC judgement can be found in 'incompatible' to the ECtHR. It very welcome to get such a strong statement in a judgement so soon:

120 The question of incompatibility was not directly addressed in FWS. It seems to me that this was because none of the participants thought it arguable, and not because it was overlooked.

...

122 Given that view, which was supported by the detailed reasons given at paragraphs [249] to [263], I think it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have accepted that the EA 2010 as interpreted by it was incompatible with the ECHR.

123 For those reasons I consider it extremely unlikely that any higher court would grant the declaration of incompatibility which the Claimant now wishes to seek. The position is different from that in Kay, where a binding domestic authority conflicted with a subsequent ECtHR decision, creating an obvious need for reconsideration. Here, the Supreme Court has only just considered the
matter, and there is no subsequent ECtHR decision.

Thanks for clarifying, @Ereshkigalangclegand @Helleofabore

Too many judges are old white men who are misogynistic or biased against women. Infuriating.

You are in good company

@BellissimoGecko this is the part Champ (an ironic name perhaps, like when you have a brick shithouse type bloke nicknamed Tiny) is referring to. You can see that it was a bit concerning but Mr Champ is reaching somewhat here because fairness is always going to be an issue in these sports and the judge was at least persuaded by the physical performance between sexes issue. Champ seems to have missed or forgotten that part.

Considering the judge found that there was male advantage that was never going to be mitigated through suppressed testosterone, I would think there is some optimistic twisting happening here.

I’ve just read this. The article said:

‘Following the verdict, Ms Haynes's legal team expressed their disappointment. Matt Champ, a senior associate at Colman Coyle who represented Haynes, said: “We and our client are naturally disappointed with the court’s decision that it was bound to follow the much-criticised Supreme Court case of For Women Scotland and dismiss our client’s case for gender reassignment discrimination.
“However, whilst the judge dismissed the case based upon For Women Scotland, we take some solace in the fact that he found that, if he was not bound by that decision, he would have agreed with our client and found that the need to show that exclusion was ‘necessary’ so as to comply with the Equality Act 2010 would have been on the defendants, that was a hotly contested issue at trial."
“More importantly, the judge also found that if he were required to decide it, he would have found that the EBPF’s actions were not capable of being a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ and so the defendants’ secondary case would have failed.’

Is this accurate? Did the judge say this? If so why??