Court orders the granting of a GRC to a prisoner despite opposition from 'gatekepers'thout a diagnosis of gender dysphoria

[theOtherPamAyres]

Serving a term of 8 years imprisonment, the father of seven had failed to satisfy a panel that they met the criteria for a Gender Recognition Certificate.

The court said that s/he did meet the criteria and that a GRC should be issued.

Can the public have any confidence in gate-keeping the re-writing of history, when judges say they know better than the experts?

What chance has the prison service got at segregating the sexes, when the government and courts undermine their efforts?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trangender-rights-gender-recognitions-exposives-womens-prisons-father-of-seven-david-gauke-a8586241.html

Different newspaper but same person, I think - being discussed here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396449-GRC-for-transwoman-with-illegal-explosives-conviction

I don't think we were told that simply meeting the criteria tied the court's hands. I thought we were told there had always been adequate safeguards... that the panel embodied those safeguards!

[hollow laugh]

How we oppose this?
Do the women who were sexually assaulted in prison have a case to sue the government?

I am sick and tired of the unfair silencing of gender critical women on facebook and twitter.
How do we challenge that?
I'm tired and not being very articulate, but I just want to call all of this bullshit out!
I just don't feel like I have a voice anymore.

*Don't have a voice anymore.

But that stonewall representative on women's hour complained that there was no right of appeal to the GRC panel and they had the last word?? Or did I mishear?

It s clear from the transcript of the judgement in this case that there is a statutory right of appeal to the courts. The court applied judicial review style scrutiny of the panels decision, but also has the power to order a GRC. There were clearly issues with the decision of the panel. I personally don’t think from a quick skim reading of the judgement that it’s unreasonable.

nellieellie wrote: There were clearly issues with the decision of the panel. I personally don’t think from a quick skim reading of the judgement that it’s unreasonable.

Interesting. Is there a link to the transcript, please?

arran I think it's been linked on the other thread about this.

Judgment in case anyone can't identify it: www.cloisters.com/images/M_Jay_v_Sec_of_State_for_Justice_2018_EWHC_2620_Fam_003.pdf

Do the women who were sexually assaulted in prison have a case to sue the government

I would’ve thought so and I’m happy to contribute to a crowdfunder.

Reading through the judgement now and it's interesting to note Helen Webberly's name crop up AFTER the panel turned down the application due to there not being sufficient evidence of living in the preferred gender or indeed gender dysphoria.

In fact, the panel Dr (from Charing Cross GIC) noted that the individual incorrectly claimed to have had prior involvement with the clinic he ran.

So couldn't get a Dr to verify gender dysphoria - then Helen Webberly's name appears.

No lused that is what she said. Chalk up another lie to her!