The Times interview with lord hodge about Sc ruling

Revolutionary, yes!

It’s almost as if the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ describe two significantly different things, and that the meaning of those words isn’t interchangeable on a whim, isn’t it?

Absolutely. He explains it in such a clear, concise way too!

In the first couple of weeks after the ruling the level of vitriol directed at the judges (and Lord Hodge in particular) on social and some mainstream media was truly shocking.

It’s now settled into the narrative that the judgement is evidence of institutional transphobia and increasing far right capture in law and politics.

I’m on the fringes of a few ‘be kind’ leaning groups on FB and similar accounts on Instagram and the utter lack of comprehension and general misinterpretation of the ruling was, and continues to be, dire.

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. For them, it really did seem to come out of nowhere and the only possible explanation for them is that the process was hopelessly biased (no trans voices were allowed etc) and led by judges who are personally stupid and motivated by hate or are weak and influenced by dark political forces.

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.

I agree that Lord Hodge is insulated to a certain degree and is not facing the same sort of relentless personal attack as longstanding women’s campaigners but, to be fair to him, he’s not wrong to say he’s taking some flak.

Yes, of course, but in the explanation for the ruling it was about sex as a protected characteristic was being discriminated against within the EA!

The only part where I eyerolled was:

“I was aware that there would be criticism of our judgment, which is why, as the senior author, I said, ‘I will take the flak’. And though I don’t go on social media, I understand there’s a certain amount of flak directed at me there, and I was aware there would be consequences.”

I imagine Hodge has had little to no flak directed at him personally - or if he has, it's nothing in comparison with the vitriol thrown at prominent GC women. I bet most TRAs couldn't even tell you his name. Had the senior judge had been a woman, she'd have been singled out for repeated, highly personal attacks as a TERF by now.

@Grammarnut I noticed this too.

Quote: “In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, for the purposes of the act, a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth — that is, biological sex. It meant that public bodies, providing toilet or bathing spaces, had to provide separate facilities for transgender people, a ruling that is still being argued across the country.”

Isn’t this a rather odd paragraph to write? The SC ruling didn’t state that bodies needed to make third spaces for trans people, just that they had to use the toilets that corresponded with their sex. No mention of the protections afforded to women or more serious cases where this is a lot more pressing ie. prisons, rape crisis centres.

Otherwise a very interesting article to read. Thank you for sharing!

A woman with a GRC wouldn't get pregnant.

It does rather beggar belief that a woman who wants to present as a man would want to do something as womanly as get pregnant. Wasn't someone refused a GRC on this basis recently?

My bad! It was the journalist's description of the decision. 😳

Good point.

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.

They seemed to take the trans people’s word for it that there was absolutely no chance that anyone would ever make a fraudulent application or change their mind due to the supposedly rigorous process but then attempted to remove the rigorous process with self id. Obviously, despite the claims of the trans activists, the process is not actually rigorous.

That part wasn't a quote from Hodge though - was it the journalist's interpretation?

That made me think he might be some sort of believer, because he uncritically accepts that a TW in the gents is out of the question. Why?

Good article. What sprang out at me was that it said that third spaces would be needed for trans people. No mention that this ruling has meant women can have back their single sex spaces, which show how deeply embedded trans ideology is in the media - it's always about trans, never about women.

Sexual orientation was also affected. And, TRAs already kicking off about workplace regulations.....

Not really interested in us having the same discussion as we have had on any number of threads but ...

The Supreme Court ruling was about the word sex in the EA.

The ruling was about the contradicionts raised by the law created by the GRA that allowed those with a GRC to be a "legal" man or women through gender re-assignment.

The court decided that it was desciminatory for the protected characteristic of sex to be impinged on by those with a GRC.

So for the purposes of the EA, the word sex is biological.

However, those who drafted the EA had every intention of the word sex being impinged on by those with a GRC. If they hadn't meant that, then they wouldn't have made the tiny concession that where "proportionate" biological women where permitted to have biolgocial female sex only services and facilities.

So the Supreme Court ruling gave back equality to each of the protected characteristic (although only sex had been undermined by another) within the EA.

What isn't clear and probably wont be even after we find out the guidelines the EHRC are when published, is whether TRAs will focus on how the EA doesn't apply to any number of situations.

As share tokens dont last here is an archive link https://archive.is/QBMMU

A legal fiction is one thing. But passing a law that requires us all to pretend to believe something that isn't true (ie interpreting misgendering and demurral as non-WORIADS) is surely contrary to Art 9 ECHR.

There's case law. In practice, your biological sex is what it says on your original birth registration including any subsequent error corrections. GRC does not modify the original registration in any way.

Someone who can't access their registration eg a refugee might need to be tested/physically examined. There's case law for that too, setting out clear guidelines on how to sex a human, would you believe (thanks, April Ashley)?

Relying on the registration could result in oddities like Caster Semenya being technically biologically female, but she can still be legally excluded from women's spaces using the mechanism described by the SC in relation to transmen. It all works like a well-oiled machine, whatever your performatively baffled TRA friend might say.

The fact that 'sex' could ever have meant anything other than biological sex

The law doesn't concern itself with reality. If it did we'd be overrun by evidence based policies, and nobody wants that.

The law concerns itself with ... the law Which is why you have some laws where they have to redefine reality to ensure it can be legislated for.

Just look at how many different ways the word "public" can be diced and sliced in statutes.

The fact that 'sex' could ever have meant anything other than biological sex - and here in Ireland, 'sex' can still mean 'whatever you want to be' - against all logic and scientific evidence is what is so crazy about the whole trans juggernaut that has taken over so many aspects of life.

That is one reason why it has been so distressing on an emotional as well as a political level - it's all so 'blindingly obvious as you say PrettyDamnCosmic, demonstrably daft, but key people and institutions suspended their critical thinking and basic common sense, with disastrous results for women in particular, but for wider society too.

The UKSC has reset things considerably, and the tide seems to be turning, but so much damage has been done to individuals, groups, society, and the meaning of words

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if that is because "sex at birth" is only available to the law in the documentary form of "Sex recorded at birth". It's on such pinheads the money is made.

To me the coherence shows when a TiM - let's call him Beth, spends a period trying to 'live as a woman', but since Gender Identity isn't protected he's not allowed in female facilities. Then his two years are up and off he goes to get his Gender Recognition certificate. He comes back to work the day after and suddenly, despite being exactly the same person as he was two days earlier, is now allowed in women's facilities.

Well, yes, I don't disagree. But where there is disagreement (pushed by believers of Stonewall Law), then you revert to the Supreme Court. They then apply common sense!

YY.

It was blindingly obvious to me even before the SC clarified the law that the only possible interpretation of sex in the Equality Act had to be biological sex. It has to be biological sex before you are able to define the protected characteristics of sexual orientation & gender reassignment. A GRC is meaningless.