Today it's Amnesty Internation on Woman's Hour to discuss the Supreme Court judgment

[nauticant]

With Anita Rani. I am not expecting much in the way of challenges.

Perfect. If many of us have managed to read and understand it when for most of us it's not our job, then the head of a human rights charity should bloody well be better informed!

No, I don't agree at all. I met these blokes in the ladies loos, in the 70s and 80s, they enjoyed making women and girls uncomfortable to get their sexual jollies then just as they do now, the only difference is they couldn't post it to social media or gang up. They do not deserve our sympathy.

This analysis, by Michael Foran, addresses some of the complaints made by Amnesty International and others, in the light of the supreme court ruling:

".....In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that a biological sex interpretation of the Equality Act would not violate the rights of transgender people and a certificated sex interpretation of the Equality Act would violate the rights of others. Far from omitting human rights analysis from its judgment, the Supreme Court has engaged in a detailed consideration of the various competing rights and interests to inform the core determination in this case, which was one of statutory interpretation. ....."

"Wigley criticises the Supreme Court for not appearing to address the arguments of Amnesty International UK “in form or in substance anywhere in the judgment”..........The central problem with this critique is that the Supreme Court does address these arguments and it does so in detail"

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/05/15/michael-foran-for-women-scotland-is-legal-recognition-of-biological-sex-a-violation-of-human-rights/

I feel for them, but I don't believe they weren't smart enough to see this coming. It doesn't take much to arrive at the Hayton conclusion of "oh shit, when I transitioned I had broad social acceptance and now these extremists are putting that acceptance at risk."

All it takes is the willingness to say something at odds with the extremists, but no more than a handful have done that. Fear of the mob, or maybe just tribalism, beats rational self-interest.

It's hard to think of a group more poorly served by the people who claim to represent them.

Wow, I had no idea. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, given what we’ve seen recently. Thanks for that perspective.

Lady Dorian’s judgement was 30 pages long!

www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/l1imtxvx/court-of-session-judgement-reclaiming-motion-by-for-women-scotland-limited-against-the-scottish-ministers-01-november-2023.pdf

Great post, sums up Amnesty perfectly!

Excellent point made here about the Amnesty guy's feigned confusion over the need for female toilets:

https://x.com/TheCountessIE/status/1923340393438982474

Absolute nonsense, @amnesty @AmnestyUK know exactly why girls need private toilets, in fact, they've campaigned on this very issue. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/how-toilets-can-make-schools-safer/

Plus ça change 🙄

He read the wrong judgement!

It’s happened before here that TRAs have “accidentally” quoted from judgments that have since been superseded, portraying the out of date judgment as the correct legal position. Maybe it’s simply incompetence, maybe it’s disinformation with plausible deniability.

He's the CEO and so I don't think he read either judgment. I think he was briefed on both but the "about 30 pages" memory came from only remembering that number from the first judgment from the lower court. He clearly received at least one briefing based on trans activist summaries and disinformation.

Ah, didn’t read the whole thread. I see OldCrone reached the same conclusion before me*

Wrong. I've been on the gay scene for nearly 30 years. Met loads of trans people in clubs, etc. Never once felt threatened. Me and all of my female friends though have all experience things - r*pe, childhood sa, dv, gaslighting, misogyny, upskirting, having drinks spiked - none of which were perpetrated by trans but STRAIGHT men.

If I was going on a nationwide media show under intense social media scrutiny where I could be made to look like a complete idiot, you can be sure I’d read the SC judgment myself.

Many male trans people are “straight men”. Every male who claims he is a lesbian is.

Is the Amnesty CEO shaking his tin cup and reminding watchers of TV that they exist … and that Amnesty needs money? Trans in UK hardly huge issue IN MY Opinion. There’s much worse tragedy in world than a trans doctors feelings when a woman doesn’t want him watching her undress after he ASKs her to undress ... at work.

I wonder how successful a fund-raising move it is when a lot of your regular givers probably thought you spent your time focused on political prisoners?

Being the CEO and Amnesty's representative is exactly why he should have read it. If he was too important to do it then they should have sent on someone who wasn't. Although judging by the absolute halfwits in charge of the social media, maybe there's nobody left there now who can read anything beyond Spot the Dog.

Do they still have a pimp on the board? And campaign for removing the right to vote from women in Ireland who object to transideology?

I suppose it was to be expected, but is anyone else sick to the back teeth of the chat about the SC judgement being all about the poor men and their hurty feelz? In my workplace it started the very afternoon of the judgement with the first of several emails telling us that 1) trans people are worried and upset and we need to look after them, 2) policies about facilities in our workplace haven't changed (the implication is that they won't, although when I asked HR they pointed out that the emails don't actually say there won't be any changes coming), and 3) here are lots of organisations you can go to for help, no prizes for guessing which ones they are (yes, the ones who misled everyone about the law in the first place). The tone of all the emails is that the SC judgement is a problem despite which my organisation remains committed to trans inclusion. Not a single email has included the word woman, or said anything positive about the judgement.

Helen was a breath of fresh air on WH, reminding everyone that the judgement is actually about women, and clarifying women's rights. Everywhere else it's all about the "trans community", primarily trans-identifying men. If the Supreme Court judgement isn't enough to re-orient the discussion back to women even a little bit, I'm beginning to feel like nothing will.

You've got to remember that at that elevated level one priority for him will be to signal to other people at an equivalent level, that he'll be planning to play musical chairs with, that he does the right kind of thinking and will say the right things. Perhaps risking undermining Amnesty International is a lesser consideration.

Good point @nauticant

But, but Amnesty were interveners!

What the fuck did they say in their intervention submission??

We think men should be allowed in women's spaces, because women get killed by intimate partners?

This must be another one of those pesky 'incoherent' thingies.

Quite apart from anything else, under that logic all those men who murder their intimate partners, can now access more vulnerable women in their own private spaces.

Or is it all right for us to get undressed amongst murderers and rapists, as long as they wait till they get home before they do it

Ffs. What morons these men are

You mean like the straight men who say they are trans to gain access to women/girls and try and coerce lesbians to accept 'girl-dick'?

Pray tell, how do we differentiate between these men and the genuine trans identifying men?