Transgender Judge Seeks Leave To Intervene in FWS Case re Legal Definition of Woman

[LoobiJee]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/28/transgender-judge-seeks-leave-to-intervene-in-uk-court-case-over-legal-definition-of-woman

“Last month McCloud, 54, announced that she was resigning from the bench in April after 14 years as a full-time judge, citing the toxic climate towards transgender individuals in the UK.”

I thought the reason was McCloud’s lack of impartiality / inappropriate social media posts but may be getting confused with another case.

Something must be seriously wrong at the gooniad, they described JK as "author and campaigner" and not as a big ole terfy pants who unexists the most marginalized!
Perhaps LOJs mum has sent him to bed early for being a little shit?

Or JKR’s lawyers have written a stiff letter, Cranky.

Ooh! A threatened flounce!

“This would mean in practice that women like her [with a gender recognition certificate] would lose rights to equal pay with men”

Can anyone explain how the good judge would not be protected by equality laws on the basis of sex or the EA under “gender reassignment”?

Yeah that makes no sense at all.

Pension perhaps?

The concerns the EHRC had were that transmen would lose maternity rights.

I don't think even the judge could explain that!

Wait. The comparator for McCloud would be another man. So the discrimination in pay would be on the basis of gender reassignment, not sex.

Because McCloud is of the male sex. So you aren't comparing him with the opposite sex, which is the basis of sex discrimination.

The more I find out about the Equality Act, the more I realise how well it was drafted. The word Woman is clearly defined and so many of the provisions make it clear that TWAM, GRC notwithstanding. The problems we have are mostly of Stonewall's and captured judges' making.

Thank you. Excellent turn of phrase. Much needed here.

Well yes, my point was that if the comparator for wages was another man, McCloud would be protected under “gender reassignment”.

Maternity is a separate matter. If the EHRC are concerned, then presumably there is some problematic wording. Seems odd though as a judge has already clarified that anyone who gives birth is a mother.

Presumably the good judge is under the impression that transwomen like ‘her’ are routinely being paid less because employers think they are actually women. As oppose to the evidence of our eyes which suggests transwomen are disproportionately in higher paid roles because employers think they are really men.

I think this is progress - a member of the judiciary not taking advantage of a privileged position to change practice to their personal advantage as has been happening to a shameful degree in recent years. Instead becoming an open campaigner with the (sadly rather unsuccessful) "Good Law" group. As their leader Jolyon has pointed out (not a direct quote, I've made a few tweaks) but he understands the principle:

So many of these cases – about and with profound effects on the lives of trans people women– are decided without any trans people women in the room

So I'm confused easily, so is it, you can live and work legally with a GRC as a female , but expect to be paid salary and pension as your biological sex..man?

The appeal of Haldane to the Inner Court struck down (if that's the correct phrase) her judgement partly and confirmed that the maternity and pregnancy provisions refer to bio sex and do protect women who claim to be men. They took the approach that Sex could mean either bio sex+certificated sex OR bio sex, depending on which provisions of the Act were concerned and in the maternity and pregnancy provisions it must mean bio sex.

Regardless, if the pay is less than other men and it needs to go to court, then the judge will be correctly and appropriately covered under the EA due to gender reassignment.

Or is there some nonsense claim that to do so would be “outing”.

If you want equality, then own the truth and use the law. That’s what it’s there for.

''When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.'

If McCloud were successful and 'sex' was not ever allowed to be tied to biological sex, then transmen would lose all maternity protections.

It really does show up which sex is more in need of legal protection, very starkly.

McCloud wants to do this for ego and validation.

“This would mean in practice that women like her [with a gender recognition certificate] would lose rights to equal pay with men”

Equal pay is really complicated - I think it's just men v women, so impossible to claim that it reflects gender reassignment discrimination.

The EHRC guidance is here: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/equal-pay

I'm just finding it quite hard to imagine that a senior white male judge is some kind of hero of oppressed people, tbh.

I thought the argument in Scotland was that a GRC was just an admin thing - apparently not.

I think that a hypothetical perfectly passing TW who was paid less than a man might still be able to call on the protection of sex discrimination law even though the discrimination is based on a misapprehension as to his sex. It's called perceptive discrimination. I would have thought a judge would know that though.

I think the problem is that if you claimed for discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment you would be comparing your pay to those who are not trans (women and men) doing similar jobs. If you claim on the basis of sex discrimination then you are comparing your pay to what men in similar jobs are being paid.

Here's the page on the Good God Project.

https://goodlawproject.org/case/help-protect-trans-peoples-right-to-safety/

I guess the judge assumes no employer is going to say “we’re not paying you less because you’re a woman, because we don’t believe transwomen are women”