Managed to listen this morning.
How did this person become a judge? Or are they simply dishonest? Or do synthetic hormones impact on brain function? Sounds very reasonable but the arguments made are contradictory or illogical.
Quibbling about the meaning or definition of biological sex on the one hand - but at the start of the talk saying it was very simple - based on "f" or "m" on your birth certificate.
Claiming that under the EA they are a "man" when considering equal pay with men. Incorrect! They either have protection under the EA via direct discrimination under Gender Reassignment or indirect discrimination if treated as if they were a Woman.
Repeating the GRA "acquired gender for all purposes" 9(1) wording while omitting the list of original exceptions (I think the list included sports alongside peerages/property but noone mentions that) and 9(3) which says unless "any piece of legislation, including secondary legislation, may introduce further exemptions to the scope of a GRC"
Stating at different times that they are trans, transsexual, transgender and that they were "I was aware that I had the medical condition of gender dysphoria from my earliest memories". So they know that they were born male even though they felt they were female. They know that this is a medical condition for which they presumably had to have diagnostic paperwork to get a GRC. They were themselves once a chartered psychologist. As a PP said, the process of getting this diagnosis and certification should have included therapy making it clear that a change of "sex" would not be happening or possible. How can they possibly say that they don't know which box to tick on a form asking for sex?
They state that they have two sexes under the law depending on whether it is the GRA or the EA. But a GRC changes gender and not sex - the clue is in the name Gender Recognition Certificate. The EA is also now clarified - they are male under sex and a woman under gender reassignment.
They claim that human rights are absolute and that the majority can't use their numbers to overrule a minority's needs. ETA but ignore women's human rights - while assuming their right is to use women's facilities as opposed to having a third space available.
Claiming that trans people weren't included anywhere in the legal process and rejected as intervenors to the SC - when literally the case was because the Scottish Government had said unlawfully that TW were women. So their rights were at the absolute heart of the case with a whole government on their side?
If this is the sum of the legal argument then this appeal is pointless - and is certain to be an own-goal. Why get the European Court to confirm all this publicly? I can't understand what the TRAs possibly gain by pursuing this legal case... unless it is an ignorance of the facts about what has been happening to women?
It has occured to me, that the BBC and Guardian omissions in coverage has possibly done a disservice to the transsexuals like VM. They claim not to have heard about the bad things which have happened to women. They say have seen "things on the internet" like nazi salutes at a GC meeting in Australia etc Of course the woeful coverage on the BBC means that the Moira Deeming case hasn't been well publicised which de-bunks that whole saga...
I was completely in the dark just "getting on with life" until the Peggie case in February. Is it possible that people like VM have been taken by surprise by the SC ruling because they just didn't see it coming? Could that really be possible? I'd rather think that than the money making or publicity stunt possibilities...