The Times interview with lord hodge about Sc ruling

I think the inclusion of lesbian rights by intervenors in this case really helped clarify this, because of course it sounds ridiculous that you’d be attracted to someone because they had a certificate, whether or not you were aware of it.

Exactly, and they talked about this aspect at the hearing, the first time I’ve ever heard this thrashed out before, which is online if anyone wants to see it.

I think if you focus on this point, it's really easy to see why the SC judgment went the way it did.

Trans people without a GRC are, both biologically and legally, their birth sex. So a single sex space for women clearly does not include male people without a GRC because they fail to meet the criteria whichever way you look at it.

And there's no way to tell the difference between a trans person with a GRC and a trans person without one for the purposes of single sex spaces.

The reason that anyone spoke about the amount of people with a GRC at all in law is that they were the only trans people to be technically affected by the Supreme Court ruling, based on the definition of SEX not GENDER REASSIGNMENT. The belief, which had to go all the way up to the SC to be refuted, was that men with a GRC were a different class of legal women under the pc of sex, not that they had the PC or didn’t have the PC of GR. That was not the issue at hand.

Completely made up nonsense.

It is not “Stonewall Law” that you don’t need a GRC to benefit from the EA pc of “gender reassignment”. It has always been the case. But please do refute me with an actual quote from the EA to prove your claim @IwantToRetire- it shouldn’t be too difficult for you, no?

There have been whole threads of misinformation. I can only conclude that you have a very slim grasp of most of this stuff, so frequently, demonstrably wrong are you in these misguided proclamations.

'You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

That is Stonewall's law.'

No it's not. It's the actual law.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

'People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.'

You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

That is Stonewall's law.

The reality is that the expectation is that people are on the route to gaining a GRC by undergoing reassignment, ie some medical intervention.

The notion that this catergory is about clothing is Stonewall's.

But there is no doubt that the sucess of Stonewall and others has led to a blurring of the difference between those with an identity and those who in the past would have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

However many times you post this on difference threads it doesn't change the reality.

Ignoring the threads that talk about it only applying to around 10,000 or even the "i've been let down by the law" by someone with a GRC.

That is in fact the problem.

That thanks to Stonewall's law being the one most people think is the law is why employers and venues, have thought it is about indentifying.

Some people shop lift, and the law doesn't do anything about it. But that doesn't mean shop lifting isn't illegal.

Just worth noting that where a later law contradicts an earlier on, the later one is used.

This is the wording of the EA:

'7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.'

The wording is stupidly woolly (my highlighting above). 'Proposing to undergo' is not defined. Neither is '...changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

What other attributes could they be? Who decides if your changed 'attribute' is sufficiently womanly (or manly, for transmen)?

You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

Oh please. There have been whole threads about this.

And quoted in newspaper articles.

More and more being on FWR is like ground hog day.

I think the reference to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was included in that letter because, until the SC ruling, it was used to justify 'trans-inclusion' for non-GRC holders.

Example: TW 'can't' use the gents and not allowed to use the ladies. Nowhere to pee. Worse off than other men without the PC of GR, and also worse off than the opposite (female) sex.

PC of GR very wide, can self-declare. But getting a GRC requires not just living in the acquired gender (gas bills!) but also convincing a doctor re gender dysphoria. Unlikely without some changes in appearance.

This shows such a basic lack of legal knowledge that the writer must be being disingenuous.

There is a very fine line between cross dressing and being “trans”. If it’s occasionally, then no. But if you are “transitioning” there have been occasions when it’s been upheld in lower courts, such as Jaguar Landrover, which was never appealed so TRAs (wrongly I believe) claim that “non binary” people are covered by the EA. The man was covered because he fit the normal definition of a “transsexual” in the EA.

Where are you getting this 10000 people from? This isn’t true.

'Undergoing reassignment or intending to do so' isn't defined in the Act, AFAIK.

A lot of women wear trousers, have short hair and don't wear make up - like me right now in fact. Am I undergoing a process of reassignment today? Does anyone know my intentions? Will the process be cancelled when I next put a dress on? This just highlights how absurd it all is.

I think you should look up the EA and read the definition of gender reassignment. It isn't about clothes. It is the process of undergoing reassignment or on the path to do so.

Since you quote me, I thought I should reply although I think others have answered this. It begs the question of what exactly is the process of undergoing reassignment or on the path to do so? Previously it was about wearing women's clothes and using the ladies loos for two years. Now it's about changing your documentation, and insisting that you are a laydee. Or so it seems!

I am not sure whether I have read the Equality Act but I most certainly have read every single page of the Supreme Court judgement, so that I knew exactly what the Court was stating.

This sort of assumption has been a significant blind spot in all kinds of legislation over the past, maybe three decades? Maybe longer?

Things meant to be helpful for any kind of stigmatised or minority group have been approached as if there is no way they could be used for ill. For exa,ple, the human rights tribunals that Yaniv used to intimidate women. No one seems to have stopped and though, gee, I wonder if someone could use this mechanism to harass people, how to we protect against that.

Over the last number of years where I live we are also seeing something similar with access to information requests to the government. They are being used in ways that are really not what was intended, in some cases to do the work a journalist should be doing himself, in other cases to overwhelm government offices with busy work.

The assumption seems to be, no one would pretend to be oppressed to get something, and no one who is oppressed would be a bad actor and use help in a dishonest way.

At the moment there are only around 10,000 people who are part of this protected characteristic.

Even the WEC referred to this.

But what they didn't do, even though they are spearheading the rainbow revolution, is talk about how or why all those with the ever expanding indentities have any rights to ask for anything different from everyone else.

Any more that Goths can ask for special treatment.

Only those who have swallowed Stonewall's law think that they do.

I copied it from the Act as on the Government web site.

At the moment there are only around 10,000 people who are part of this protected characteristic.

And they are the only ones who it could be said have been negatively impacted by the Supreme Court Judgement. ie they were promised a legal reality that real life has told them they dont have.

Everyone else who wants to cross dress or whatever, is not covered.

The answer to your question is that "Robin Moira White (Ms)" has indeed sent such a letter with more than one typo.

Also notable is his careless use of language, particularly the sentence, "With respect to Nicholas Linklater who interviewed Lord Hodge, who is not a lawyer, the piece leaves far more questions unanswered than it answers." This is a strange assertion to make about a Supreme Court Justice.

I can't imagine paying good money to engage a barrister who produces this level of work.

The GRA was revolutionary for its time in not requiring surgery for the process of gender reassignment to be happening. The intention bit is rather extraordinary but meant in practice that people who have made no changes at all in their lives or presentation could not be excluded from certification for that reason.

I sometimes think about the fact that my son was born the same year the GRA became law. The two events seem to belong to different worlds.

'Undergoing reassignment or intending to do so' isn't defined in the Act, AFAIK. Therefore, we can't say whether just clothes gives someone protection of it or not. It could be argued that wearing clothes of the opposite sex is the start of that journey (and how can - lack of - intent be proven?).

Is “withing” some kind of legal technical word I’ve never heard, or has White sent a letter to a senior judge, as well as spreading it all over the internet, with a careless typo in his very first point?