Trans former judge to take government to ECHR

[CervixSampler]

Trans former judge is taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights over SC ruling

Ah I see thanks @WitchesofPainswick

Interesting. Fundamentally the laws are flawed and damaging and we keep going round in cycles due to the massive issue the legislation poses.

I’d find a way to get off the hamster wheel and reinstate fact based legislation.

Why don't all the very vocal male trans supporters like David Tennant say very loudly 'Transwomen! you are welcome in the men's, we will protect you and keep you safe!'?

This would solve the whole thing, surely if TW are worried about their safety.

Come on David Tennant, get on it!

Waits....

That is something worth thinking about, if that is the challenge being mooted (against the EA and not the SC ruling as such).

IANAL but I might need to look at the mechanisms for taking a case on a specific issue such as this.

In the end, if it can be done it might work in biology's favour. If the ECHR hands down a similar judgment to the UK SC, then all signatories to the ECHR must presumably comply with that.

It could of course go the other way though...... which is what the judge wants I suppose.

I wonder how many years it will take to get a hearing. If the challenge is allowed.

RoastOrMash · Today 10:20

I think that article should say why Prof Whittle and Judge McCloud were refused application to intervene.

Yes, former Master Cumulonimbus is resident in Ireland and therefore, ineligible to intervene, notwithstanding the fact that individuals cannot do so, in any case.

It would also be helpful for them to explain why he's no longer a judge, ie he was invited to resign, or be sacked, because he posted trans activist polemics online, bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

Good. Some in legal profession seem to be behaving this way. I’m surprised the one talked about on another thread is still a KC.

You'll be waiting a really long time, despite that being the most obvious solution. Even if DT thought it, I don't think he's brave enough to break rank.

Well they could have had it all, couldn't they?

Legal recognition (a certificate, an acquired gender marker on their ID)

Protection from discrimination

All of the sex-based rights of their own sex and the human rights of both sexes

Privacy rights, to the extent compatible with sex-based rights

It could have worked. People are very open to the metaphysical, and could have easily coped with, say, a person who is socially female but legally male. And it wouldn't matter who passed, or had surgery

But then they had to spoil it all by saying something stupid like 'I'm a biological woman and I want my women's sex-based rights' (quick reminder - the sex-based rights are the ones that arise from actual biology, with only one notable exception - and guess whom that exception benefits!)

You'd think they'd smell a rat when it turned out that a man who 'transitions' got pregnancy and maternity rights, but could still keep his hereditary peerage, wouldn't you? 🙄

If tras want to challenge the equality act 1st they need to have gone through a judicial review

Maybe that's what the fox-botherer has in mind (they are heard by the High Court).

Unlikely, because you wouldn't be able to mandate sterilisation as a part of getting a GRC. Already decided by ECtHR.

i understand that a Supreme Court ruling can only be over-turned by the Supreme Court itself - and the European courts do not have the right to over-rule the British court.

This sort of challenge was inevitable and we can expect more in the months to come. We'll just have to sit it out.

‘the judgement had left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once" ‘

irony meter broken again.

why is this person trying to be the arbiter of being both sexes being nonsense, but changing sex not being nonsense?

shine a light on the whole thing. Let’s have it out in court with experts and peer reviewed papers and have done with it.

be as gender non conforming as you like, get help for dysphoria if needed, have protection from discrimination for all, but base it on reality and get shot of the nonsense that mammals can change sex.

The ruing wasn't about "trans people having their say", anyway..it was about what constitutes law and what words can reasonably be taken to mean in the context of the equalities act

It's not gonna happen. McCloud, like lots of other TRAs is just grandstanding. The game is up.

I've read Goodwin judgement before, as it was the foundation for the GRA.

The GRA was imposed by the ECtHR as the UK was found to be in breach of article 8.

I think this case there will ultimately succeed, and the UK government will then have to go back to giving primacy to the GRA, or amend equality act to comply in UK law

Or, a Reform govt will get rid of the UK being in the convention of human rights, and bring in the British Bill of Rights they're always on about, and then they can do what they want. (and get rid of potentially lots of our other human rights too which wouldn't be affected by this)

You cannot have single sex protections with some exceptions. That was made very clear by the recent ruling. It has got nothing to do with the 'transgender' point of view'. It has got to do with meaning of 'Sex' as it pertains to the equality act. 'Sex' is a protected category with its own defined protections, and 'Gender -re-assignment' is also a proted category with its own defined protections.

@OneGreyScroller Please explain why you think that McCloud will succeed and why you think that Peter Daly is wrong.

Terrible wig - so obvious it’s fake..

Seriously though, the notion that women should have to re-earn the sex-based rights our great-grandmothers already won for us is discrimination in itself.

It’s discrimination to force people with a protected characteristic to have to continually justify why that protected characteristic has already been enshrined in law, as we’re already protected.

It forces women to have to dig through the archives of the last century of explaining how sexism works to men, which is degrading, distressing and unreasonably onerous, given that the law already recognises the multiple barriers that women face as a consequence of their sex.

Women shouldn’t have to re-argue to keep the rights we already have, just because men are pretending to have forgotten everything we said the first time around.

Never any photos of McCloud with other women. Always solo.

I'm not sure I can see what the case to be taken is, beyond the applicant not liking it.

The judgment is clear on WHY certificated sex was incompatible with coherent law, OR with protections for women and homosexual people AND women with trans identities.

I fully understand that there are men who would really like for women and homosexual people to not have protections in law because they are inconvenient. I'm not sure they have quite understood that other people have rights too.

I’ve read the article now and McCloud isn’t correct in saying they have ‘female anatomy’, that’s not possible.

Also the people responsible for this whole mess just didn’t think how this would grow to be such a huge mess.

The legislation to falsify sex isn’t working. It’s not doable. It needs to go and we can consider other ways to look at gender dysphoria.

From the BBC report linked:
She said the court had failed to consider human rights arguments that would have been put by trans people and the judgement had left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once".

Not two sexes at once: one sex (immutable) and a different gender identity.

And the Supreme Court had the Scottish government, and Amnesty International giving them the human rights arguments (entirely from a trans POV) throughout all the case.

Obviously arguments which the Supreme Court did not find convincing.

It's quite sad to watch really. They are going to force this to the point of having to have it announced, in law, no, you're not anatomically or biologically female in any way, that sex is binary, that reality exists.

It's like a process of self destruction.