The Times interview with lord hodge about Sc ruling

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.

The difference of this, ie about someone assuming an identity by more than just clothes is still never the same as someone who is biologically that sex.

That's why it is referred to as gender, a social construct.

Sex is a biological reality.

‘The intervenors represented minority views…’ 😆

'[The Times] carried word of my transition'

rejoice, rejoice, for word is carried in The Times of Robin's transition!

deary, deary me

I think we do have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I think the intention was to protect such a person e.g. for being singled out for redundancy for no other reason than they chose to dress as they thought a woman would do.

It doesn't matter what Hansard says, or what the Civil Servant in charge of pushing the legislation through says, or what any MPs say collectively or individually. None of that is relevant to the task of interpreting what Parliament "intended" by the wording of a law.

That's all very well if you believe that those in Parliament play by the rules.

But as those who took part in drafting it said they knew exactly what they were doing, ie creating the fiction of "legal women" (and probably intended as a trojan horse for the future) and wanted trans women to be treated as women.

We were or are lucky that our language has the word sex and that traditionally it has means biological fact, not identities.

Not forgetting is that the aim of the drafters meant that what they creaed was that within the act the protected characteristic was then discrimiated against by the concept of "legal women". ie no other protected characteristic has its rights impinged on by another one.

So the Judges picked up on the intended word soup, and said sorry words have a meaning.

We are lucky that at the time of drafting the bill the use of the word sex, as in sex discrimination, was still common / usual.

Were it only being drafted now you can bet the rainbow coalition would be fighting for it to be the protected characterisic of gender, having worked so hard over the past few decades to pretend that sex and gender are the same thing.

Think how much closed it would have been if we had had the protected characteristc og "gender" and the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

What would the Judges has said then.

The Hansard reference was a particularly bad mistake for a qualified lawyer to make. Is it deliberate dishonesty, or the product of some very powerful wishful thinking?

Even if their Lordships could reply (which I agree would be unseemly) it's never going to convince the credulous intended audience for this farrago, and the author knows that.

The "will of parliament" aspect is really important. "The will of parliament" is a shorthand for "what a reasonable parliament must have intended by the words it used". Not what any particular parliament or person did or did not intend. This is addressed in detail in paragraph 9 in FWS, quoting from a 2023 case in the Supreme court:

"...But none of these external aids displace the meanings conveyed by the words of a statute that, after consideration of that context, are clear and unambiguous and which do not produce absurdity. …Statutory interpretation involves an objective assessment of the meaning which a reasonable legislature as a body would be seeking to convey in using the statutory words which are being considered."

It doesn't matter what Hansard says, or what the Civil Servant in charge of pushing the legislation through says, or what any MPs say collectively or individually. None of that is relevant to the task of interpreting what Parliament "intended" by the wording of a law.

There is, however, a problem with someone like Lord Hodge giving this interview, and I think it was a mistake do so. Such an interview and the explanations within it allows for "doubt", and questioning. In the same way that "no" is a complete sentence, so is FWS. The SC has spoken, and that should be the end of the matter.

That response to the utter drivel written by RMW is perfect.

It's the kind of thing an arrogant 6th form boy with limited life experience but an over developed sense of personal privilege would write.

What a clown.

From..

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1967596590337532361?t=pRWUt0Hy2x06XlGiCmdChw&s=19

RMW letter to Lord Reed about the judgment and the article in The Times...

Many from the GI side exist in such a bubble that (unlike FWR regulars) they were blissfully unaware of all that led up to the FWS SC case and they were completely blindsided and bewildered by the judgement. ...Very few of them have bothered to understand the background to the ruling or read the ruling itself and, in these spaces, the blame is being put squarely on the judges themselves, with their personal integrity being smeared to oblivion.

Many from the GI side exist in such a bubble that they are blissfully unaware that their wants impinge upon others. Very few of them have bothered to understand that others have rights which they cannot just help themselves to.

I think that many men uncritically accept that trans identifying men can't use men's toilets because they personally don't want them in there.

But no one ever bothered to find out what the men thought - the TiM whined that he couldn't use the Gents and Management assumed that the women would put up with it. Until this last year.....

I just wonder how many of us women have been empowered by FWS and Sandie Peggie?

I think that many men uncritically accept that trans identifying men can't use men's toilets because they personally don't want them in there. Pretending that it is about trans identifying men's safety and dignity allows them to kid themselves that they are kind and progressive and not at all uncomfortable sharing toilets and changing rooms with gender non conforming, possibly gay men.

Yes. I didn't make that clear. Sorry!

DF often complained that DM wouldn't wear skirts. She was making her own (and mine) clothes even when it wasn't a fad.

I think one was (Norman) Lord Tebbit.

I think they just assumed it would be too humiliating for any man to wear women’s clothes so no one would do it unless they were genuine, I think someone in the House of Lords did argue that it could be taken advantage of but no one took any notice.

Quite. But the doctors who were treating them and making these stupid requirements were male.

They obviously didn't ask women if they wanted transvestites who were living full-time 'in role' using their toilets.

And only a bloke could have ever thought that wearing dresses, and using female loos was living as a woman.

Yes, but until quite recently men who wanted to be women said that they were expected to wear dresses/skirts before being approved for surgery. And use women's toilets. It was all part of "living in role" as Lynne Jones described it.

Even 40 to 50 years ago women often wore trousers. You would have to go back to pre WW2 years to find women who virtually never wore them.

The "living as a woman" thing has always baffled me. 2004 wasn't that long ago, and if I'd been more aware of what was going on, it wouldn't have made sense to me then either.

I've been trying to find if there was any discussion of this concept in parliament at the time, but I haven't managed to find anything. In one debate David Lammy goes on about "living in the opposite gender" as though this requires no explanation. Interestingly, Lynne Jones, another Labour MP who was in favour of the bill, talks about "living in role", so acknowledging that this is all just about people pretending to be the opposite sex.

Gender Recognition Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament

If you go back 40 or 50 years, "living as a woman" was a requirement before having surgery, and seems to have consisted of wearing dresses and make up and using women's toilets.

If you strip away all the stereotypes and using women's spaces, how does a man really "live as a woman"? And why are people still using such a ridiculous phrase as though it actually has meaning, but are never willing to define what they mean? It's still part of the requirement to get a GRC, but now seems to consist of changing your name to one suitable for the opposite sex and using it on your utility bills. How can anyone seriously claim that this is "living as a woman"?

The GRA dates from 2004 and hasn't aged well, especially the "lived as a woman" concept. I think it was easier to interpret this, and to follow it, as society existed at that time. I don't believe any parliamentary drafting team would give time to such ambiguous text now, and I also think they didn't appreciate how unlcear it would become.

it also reminds me that the GRA relies on the declaration of ‘living as’ a member of the opposite sex forever but then they ‘accidentally’ forgot to include any penalty for a false declaration or any mechanism to reverse the legal process.

No penalty because it's a word soup. How the holy fuck do you prove someone has "lived as a woman". Or more to the point hasn't ? Unless you want to revert back to pink for girls and blue for boys amongst all the stereotypes of what a woman should be. All to be argued in literally forensic detail over a tsunami of court cases.

Thanks for your thoughtful summary which echoes what I've read and heard from online circles and friends. As with the Cass Report, there's no engagement with the real substance of the process, just horror and rejection of its "transphobic" conclusions.

I think my point stands though in that Hodge the person isn't in the sights of TRAs. They'll say he's not done his job properly but I doubt he's getting any volume of deeply personal attacks, targeted threats of sexual violence or suggestions that what he really needs is ...[you can make up the rest].. that a woman in his position would.

Of course I don't have access to his inbox, maybe I'm totally wrong about this.