The Times interview with lord hodge about Sc ruling

Thanks, Theswiveleyeballsinthesky - that was an interesting article, both in general and in particular. He was very clear, there's no ambiguity in what he said and it really is another nail in the trans zealots' coffin.

I think the drafters of the GRA really did mean it to be applied to equality legislation, but they made assumptions:

A woman with a GRC wouldn't get pregnant.

A man without a GRC wouldn't claim to be a woman.

All men with GRCs would be passable and emasculated.

Mission creep wrecked their project.

The judgment isn't about whether the 'winning' argument was GC or not really. It was about whether the Act made sense when you included transwomen with a GRC in the definition of 'woman'. A huge part of the argument illustrating that it didn't was the rights of women who are pregnant. That section of the EA would've made no sense if 'woman' = female at birth + men with a GRC.

If the GI argument had prevailed, transmen who get pregnant would've had no maternity rights, as they would be men in law.

Which then meant they had to apply the same definition throughout the Act, as it would've been even less coherent if one section said that it's birth sex which counts, and another which said that the GRC sex counted.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw In other words, I still don't know for sure if their Lordships are GC, or just people focussed on making some difficult words make as much sense as possible.

I'm happy with them just being disinterested, sensible and fair, and I think that will make them agree with the GC side, as they did here.

But if sometimes their Lordships find against the GC view - well I suppose we have to take the rough with the smooth.

I think, legally, sex recorded (ie registered) at birth is fine. Because people with a GRC don't get an alteration to their original registration, but a whole new additional registration. Whilst corrections of errors (whether clerical or due to an incorrect initial sex assignment) are applied directly to the original and take effect as if the registration had been correct from the very start.

That’s an interesting question.

I think the article makes a small but significant mistake when it says: "a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth". As I recall, the judgement says "sex at birth" not "sex recorded at birth". I suppose this is to make it clear that subsequent surgical or hormonal modifications make no difference.

It doesn't say he thinks it's morally right for the Act to mean what it means, only that that is what it means. I'd love to know whether he thinks that his interpretation of sex should be imported into other UK enactments or instruments, but I expect he would just say 'I've not been asked to answer that question, so I won't'.

I've also wondered whether things would have gone differently if ScotGov cross-appealed, because a lot of the decision was driven by the two-tier GRC vs non-GRC problem. A rejection of the appeal based on self-ID would have been crazy but mostly self-consistent, apart from the pregnancy issue.

In other words, I still don't know for sure if their Lordships are GC, or just people focussed on making some difficult words make as much sense as possible.

Fantastic, thanks for the share!

Fantastic, thanks for the share!

Thanks for sharing OP!

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting article.

Thank you for the share token, Igneo, and to the OP for bringing this very interesting interview to our attention.

I love his confidence in their decision.
I love that photo of him - you wouldn't want to mess with Lord Hodge, would you?😧

I suggest that it be made into a sign with the caption:
THIS IS THE WOMEN'S TOILET. THE MEN'S IS OVER THERE. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT IT, I'LL SEE YOU OUTSIDE...
or
THIS IS THE WOMEN'S TOILET. GO ON TRANSWOMAN - MAKE MY DAY.

Hero. And courageous. A person unafraid to do the right thing.

Here:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6727e7fb-aaf6-46bf-a6c5-1d7869b34a64?shareToken=fb5a91417c508c2755d9955a12753486