Retiring trans judge is (by Stonewall rules) a transphobe…

[NitroNine]

In an interview given in The Times, McCloud said “Just because the media calls someone trans or offenders call themselves trans and turn up to court in a dress, doesn’t make them trans.” As we all know, this is transphobia of the most heinous kind. Only an evil GC TERF would say such a thing. Sadly no tips were forthcoming as to how one might distinguish between actual real TW who Just Want To Pee & violent opportunist criminals who want access to the ladies’ loos in order to harm women &/or girls.

You may remember Judge McCloud from previous MN threads such as:
UKs only trans judge has resigned-Victoria McCloud said she had become a target
and
Transgender Judge Seeks Leave To Intervene in FWS Case re Legal Definition of Woman.

For those without a subscription to “The Times”:
Mr Murdoch, tear down this paywall!

Schroedinger's trans, anyone who says they are trans is trans but some are just pretending.

Just because the media calls someone trans or offenders call themselves trans and turn up to court in a dress, doesn’t make them trans.

McCloud turned up to a court in a dress so does this new rule of who counts as "trans" also apply to h**

Everything and everyone is transphobic

Everyone, everything, everywhere, all at once, with history as a singularity.

Have I got that right?

All of those words are transphobic. And the punctuation too.

I read this article and found it very enlightening. I have seen barristers say this judge was a fair and good judge. Yet their behaviour recently seems to contradict this.

The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance going on there is quite something to behold. And that's without the dishonest explanation of why them resigned; it's not because them was hounded out by sex realists.

McCloud flouted the rules about posting they's legal position on social media, as well as misrepresenting theyself as a High Court Judge, rather than a Master. Them also showed animus towards GC people, in online wibblings, bringing into doubt them's ability to be impartial.

Let's not even go into they's catastrophic misrepresentation of the law, in claiming that GC belief is not an "actual protected characteristic." Nor, indeed, for claiming that manifestations of such beliefs are never protected, if a person with (presumably the trump card) protected characteristic feels "harassed."

A cynic might say that Vic decide to resign, rather than face the disciplinary proceedings, which were about to be initiated in January.

And that's before we get to the breach of judicial guidelines, stating that judges oughtn't talk to the press, on the excellent grounds that public perception of judicial impartiality might well be undermined.

Indeed Sinner. I couldn’t quite work out how McCloud, who seemed to have a public reputation for being fair and impartial, could have been so different to the tweeting habit that developed recently. Sure, McCloud could have reached the point more and more of what they really thought became publicly known so couldn’t keep the facade going. Or maybe they genuinely could be impartial to all except this issue and with each case, their view firmed or at least become more widely known.

That McCloud makes a rather large thing of using female single sex spaces really says all that is needed to be said though. This male judge never fully respected female people’s needs. when those needs clashed with McCloud’s, McCloud’s came first. Plus ca change.

Or maybe they genuinely could be impartial to all except this issue and with each case, their view firmed or at least become more widely known.

If them could not be impartial on cases of that subject and was vocal about it, how could anyone trust they in other cases? Everyone has biases, but judges need absolutely to both appear not to have and to do their best to assess the case at hand, putting their bias to one side.

Vic is clearly incapable of doing so and ought not to be used as a temp, as has been suggested.

As you say, them's performative use of the women's facilities brings into question empathy and common sense on they's part, too.

I suspect that men, who give themselves over to (sexual) fantasy, which then becomes obsessional, might easily go from rational and good at their job to being heavily slanted and unable to return.

He also said the changes would affect 9000 people. If that’s true, the number of people with GRCs is ratcheting up very fast and is now way beyond the 5000 originally mooted, who were, of course, not going to be a threat to women’s rights because there would be so few.

The judge is in an article here, getting everything backwards

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/uks-first-trans-judge-victoria-mccloud-the-uk-is-far-less-accepting-than-in-the-1990s-people-are-deliberately-insulting-pride-of-finance-48105000

If people are less accepting perhaps some reflection on the behaviour of tras might enlighten him. How their aggression, lies and entitlement might give rise to a pushback.

I'm giving the pride of finance a swerve though.

Up the ladder & o’er the paywall, a tunnocks teacake shall serve us all…

(⬆️For those of us without a Financial News subscription…)

Absolute absurdity. “Trans people had no legal protections but the 1990s was a much better time for us - yet simultaneously it’s a dark time we’re being thrust back to…” 🤦‍♀️ I’m genuinely embarrassed that a [former] member of our judiciary wrote something so utterly nonsensical. It’s inherently contradictory & still trying to impose a hierarchy of rights - with trans people at the top, of course 🙄

Surely disciplinary proceedings would have to continue if person was to temp/continue in any capacity?