Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

Me, too, mare. Every court win helps us inch back to sanity.

Excellent news. Well done, Rachel and your team. The finding is very clear and useful.

I look forward to hearing what Stonewall have to say about this.

Also hope to goodness the effects are felt throughout the public sector, healthcare, education etc. We should all feel a little freer to express our views in plain sight.

Well done Rachel, what a warrior she is!

This should crossover with the recent school guidance.

So brilliant. A teeny tiny part of me wants to shout "Shove that up your arse, you wankers". But I hope this helps lots of women. And children.

As a social worker I’m thrilled by this result

Good point

This should help in schools too, for any employer and regulator really

The complainant was actually Aedan Wolton, now a DEI lead at Sport England - a transman. Worrying really when you consider the implications for women's sport.

I'm sure Robin Moira White will be along any minute to tell us how it isn't REALLY a win.

Please don't Beetlejuice that individual to the thread. 😫

Such good news, but it makes me furious just how much money women have to spend to get protection in law confirmed and shit like this challenged.

That won't stop me contributing, I will do again and again, but God its pisses me off.

Hopefully the more organisations start to lose the less this will happen.

Good luck to RMW trying to spin that.

The judgement is absolutely damning.

RMW been on here????

He showed up from time to time, then flounced with a remark about cauldrons. Mentioning 'bundles' three times in succession is believed to cause a remanisfestation. He confirmed he doesn't have a grc in a previous visit. Bet this still gets zapped though.

An excellent win and a very useful judgment.

Although it wasn't addressed in the judgment, I do worry about misgendering and the circumstances in which that might not be protected, notwithstanding that there is a belief that pronouns should apply to sex and not to gender. The judgment does talk about beliefs which cause "an inappropriate level of offence" (whatever that might be) and there is a reference in para 185 of the judgment to the respondents' counsel arguing "that the right to manifest those beliefs was not an automatic shield from any liability, for example, the harassment of a trans person through misgendering them".

Karensalright · Today 14:11

RMW been on here????

On numerous occasions and them really, really doesn't like being put in they's place with facts and logical arguments.

I amn’t going to say this again, please no more mentions! (Swishes cloak)

Brilliant news. Many thanks to Rachel and her team

Para 274 at the end of the judgement. Following Stonewall law is starting to get very costly

The opinions expressed by the Claimant
could not sensibly be viewed as being transphobic when properly considered in
their full context from an objective perspective, but rather her expressing an
opinion contrary to the interpretation of legislation, or perhaps more accurately
the amendment to existing legislation, advocated for by trans lobbying groups to include, but not limited to, Stonewall

@SinnerBoy made me spit me coffee out

The stonewall chickens are starting to come home to roost. The training they provided was full of legal falsehoods.

Following Stonewall law is starting to get very costly

Amazing. Their clients should be aware

👏👏 this is excellent. Well done Rachel and team for taking this on.

Yes, but the problem lies with the regulator and the council. People need to be able to complain - and there will always be malicious or frivolous complaints. The problem is how the regulator/employer/council responds to them.

Hopefully it should be getting clearer and clearer that you can't treat someone badly just because they believe sex is immutable and that sex matters.

Absolutely the right decision, and it's good to see such a solid summary in the judgement.