Translucent's Steph Richards to sue the labour party.

Oh pleeeeaseeee say he’s using the good laugh project as his lawyers! I’d crowdfund to see that.

"Trans people are being excluded" mate, you're forgetting about transmen. Thinking about only males yet again #mensupportingmen

A fool and his money...

Have you seen this. Try to keep your blood pressure down 😡 as two men in womanface discuss his case

https://x.com/OkayBiology/status/2041654780381081713?s=20

Some of the comments of that crowd funder - someone thinking along the same lines as me.

Here's some money because I want to see this heard in court. It's the least I can do. Though I wonder how all your Trans brethren who have not had surgery, for various reasons, will feel if you win?

There is definitely a split happening between the haves and the have nots (penis wise)

Thanks for standing up, sorry you have had to. I transitioned in 1977, surgery in 1981. I am campaigning on LAST ( Legal Advocacy for the Surgically Transitioned) a small group fighting the Supreme Court ruling on the EA, We would love to have you on board to fight this SexMatters madness

And this has to be one of us 😂

I have given you a quid because I (an actual, real woman; not this 'cis' nonsense; not an 'identity') want to see this in court too

There is no incentive for anyone who hasn't had SRS to donate. There's nothing in it for them. In fact it just relegates them to a downgraded 'status'

I’m going to have great fun checking how badly this crowd fund is doing.

Initially I need £25k, followed by a further £45k as soon as possible

The sheer self-self absorbed narcissism of this. No introductory, 'I know times are tough', 'Every little helps' or even 'Please' just I need and as soon as possible

One thing missing from the funding page is the sound of a toilet flushing each time you press the donation button.

His apparent intention is entirely in keeping with transgenderism. Transgenderism is fundamentally about what the individual wants, about bending society to suit the individual’s desires.

They all seem to think that if a distinction needs to be made, it covers them and other trans people who have made different transition choices have to miss out.

I'm not sure he's thought this through.

Are the TRAs really going to be happy if it is agreed that only those males who have undertaken SRS could be admitted to the women's conference?

Surely any such win for Steph is a loss for people like RMW. Is that really worth fighting for?

In any case, the SC already covered this and said that two tier definitions would not be appropriate.

On the other hand, I would bet money that Bridget Phillipson will say she can't possibly lay the EHRC guidance before Parliament while there's litigation going on.

Lo and behold, the gift of prophecy! 😁

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I would like to see Steph go to court and realise that, since the Supreme Court's reasoning is remarkably clear, there's little chance of persuading a judge to issue a bad court thingy.

On the other hand, I would bet money that Bridget Phillipson will say she can't possibly lay the EHRC guidance before Parliament while there's litigation going on.

Crowdfunder just over £4k so plenty of money to get Steph himself to Strasbourg but I’m not sure how many lawyers would go with him. I hope (though I don’t know how captured the European courts are) that he would never get that far or, failing that, they would tell him that women have rights too.

Party politics and law will clash in the end, it has to, simply because fads and fashions, and ideologies cannot be allowed to influence public policy. Nobody outside of the world of politics agrees with all access for people who define themselves as Trans.

And this alleged case is just fecking grand.

As always he has the head tilt & AGP smirk.

@MoleAtTheCounter would have a field day with this!

Snagged from X:

who are his legal advisors?

What would that look like? SR can hardly claim much in money terms. Settling would (presumably) involve reversing the policy and letting TiMs vote at next year’s women’s conference. That was something the party’s legal advisers said would be unlawful, so a settlement would mean acting contrary to their own legal advice which they followed to avoid legal action from this side.

SR is going to have to argue that the LP didn’t even have the lawful discretion to refuse to allow TiMs to vote; that’s a tough row.

His case.

I hope Richards doesn't use the legal experts at the Good Law Practice for her case. That would be awful.

This is good news. Having the evidence scrutinised and out in the open is really what is needed with all of this stuff. Bring on the sunlight! 😎

One issued by Translucent?

When it's not their money, and there's no accountability, it's always surprising how reckless people can be.