Legal take down of proposed changes to the GRA by barrister Julian Norman

[OrchidInTheSun]

docs.google.com/document/d/1b7viOWsx-Wgw344fujX3QddaJN8d4JKJoaVhyzMz1so/mobilebasic

This is a really excellent and clear article which explains the legal impact on the EA of proposed changes to the GRA.

Well worth a read

If we read this can the Google account holder who has posted this see our personal details? Nervous about clicking on the link.

He is a she.
An actual biological women I'm presuming, otherwise she would have changed her name to Sapphire or something.

Really good useful essay.
Thank you.

Oh yes, sorry, Julian Norman is a woman. She wrote this article in response to one by Stephanie Hayton who is a transwoman with a GRC.

I don't think they can read your details but if you sign out of your google account before reading the article, you can be doubly sure.

I can try and save it as a pdf if you like?

yes please

She then makes the rather startling assertion that “hardly any of [the feminists] can cite credible research supporting their theory that humans can never change sex.” She will no doubt, as a lawyer, be familiar with the maxim “it is for he who asserts to prove.” If one is to assert that human beings can change sex, it is for that person to provide the credible research. A GRC supporting a legal fiction no more changes a person’s biological sex than a pilot’s licence permits them to actually fly: I note by way of remark that I have never seen cited any credible research that humans cannot fly.

😍

I've saved it but can't figure out how to upload it

It's absolutely superb. Comprehensive and clear. MPs need to read this, and CEOs of relevant organisations, and councillors - well everyone really. Please share in any way you can. Massive thanks to Julian

Yes thank you for posting this. It is excellent.

There are now more and more legal voices considering and representing women's rights in this legal discussion.

Not just lobby groups trying to remove them and prosecute people for saying anything in their defence.

OrchidInTheSun

As a solicitor revealing someone has a GRC is a criminal offence liability under section 22 of the GRA 2004

with a £5000 fine

@foxyliz26

Only if you have acquired the information in an official capacity. Stephanie publicly disclosed the information on twitter, so it's not protected by s.22 GRA.

Doesn't the fact that Orchid knows this, imply that the person in question has either:

a) already revealed that fact themselves
or
b) someone else has already revealed that fact

No?

Otherwise, how on earth would Orchid know such a personal fact?

Hmmmm?

i love it when all these online solicitors tell me my job !

someone clearly has to....

I thought the legal analysis of the prisoner (who murdered his wife and then claimed that he wanted to become a woman) was interesting.

The conclusion was that, in his case, the comparator class in looking at a discrimination claim was other members of their birth sex who are not proposing reassignment. So he was not unfairly discriminated against because he was treated the same as other male inmates.

Good to see that legal people are getting involved.

This is a really good article. Please read and share it. It focuses on the fact that amending the GRA will indeed feed into the EA- something that the Stonewall/tra lobby constantly seeks to obscure. I've thought for some time that we should be arguing that, if the GRA amendment goes ahead (a hideous prospect) the EA should be amended to provide that a person with a GRC stating that they are female is not to be treated as female for the purposes of any single sex exemption in the EA. (Or something along those lines: that isn't quite right.)

I followed the link in the footnote in Julian's article to the case of Green v Secretary of State for Justice. It's worth reading. A male prisoner who murdered his wife seeks to become a woman. In the course of doing so the prisoner seeks access to items under the MoJ's policy on transgender prisoners:

"Transsexual people, particularly those who have not undergone surgery or extended hormone therapy, may use various items to assist with their presentation in their acquired gender. These can range from sophisticated prostheses to padded bras. Regardless of their level of sophistication, access to them can only be restricted in exceptional circumstances. (Incentives and Earned Privileges) is not a justifiable reason for restricting access."

Use a private browsing window (might be called incognito depending on your browser) to see it. I'm reassured to see you all so cautious about Google services links.

Liz - Stephanie has posted that information on Twitter. That's how I know and I think it's relevant because it gives context.

Are you threatening me?

I knew Stephanie had a GRC she has openly discussed this on twitter, it is public knowledge

Here is the article by Stephanie Hayden that prompted the response from Julian Norman:

judicialcat.blogspot.com/2018/08/gender-recognition-certificates-why.html

That’s great. Very clear and helpful. Plus of course don’t forget that the WEC and Stonewall want to remove the exemptions anyway.

Foxyliz you need to get a hobby. It’s hardly an offence if the information is in the public domain.

Oh that was good, so clearly argued.

And yes yes to this

I would support calls for existing law to be either repealed and re-drafted, or clarified properly so that it becomes accessible to a lay audience seeking to implement it

Shit, it’s so well written and logical I have no way to argue with it!

What can I do?

Nice try Liz