From Tribunal Tweet
A TiM, married to a woman, transitioned, and wanted a GRC and there was no same sex marriage. His claim that the cost of a GRC was an annulment, was manifestly dismissed. Civil partnership cured. NC - the margin of appreciation in relation to questions of this nature that require a sensitive balancing of competing claims, as an aside there has been no substantive challenge to Goodwin since published. A post operative TiM who wanted to receive his pension from woman's fund was entitled to it from the date of Goodwin judgement, the point to take from grant is that the implementation of Goodwin, was laudably prompt and sufficient.
J - Grant is appeals court
NC - yes. Did I give it to you
J - yes
NC - next authority relied upon by Rs, is Garson, that creates an intermediate zone for transexuals not living as a man or a woman. Garson establishes that GRC does not require surgery. The Rs argument is too much - if Garson establishes an intermediate zone then FWS is wrong.
And both Goodwin and Nico both speak to GRCs. DU does not have a GRC, he has never said that he does. He cannot have one at the material time. Even if Art 8, Goodwin, Garson gave non-medical trans people the right to access opposite SSS, then the Rs need to claim that the GRA it futile because on self-id as trans, they are entitled to SSS.
The same comments apply, it either takes matters no further at all, or it is constrained by the consequences of GRC, either the GRA is a dead letter and FWS is wrong. The Rs also cite Cook & Germany another ECHR access to toilets of lived sex is a paradigm example of living as one's acquired sex. Cook sets out things protected by Art 8, it doesn't mention toilets, changing rooms, etc.
It's about health insurance. There is no express support anywhere in the authorities, for access to SSS. The FWS judgment gives weight to the rights of women to physical and moral security. The Rs refer to Coleman and the nub of discrim is to avoid suspect classification, and rely on this to say that discrim on basis of pcs is a bad thing. We can go along with this to a point. The C is not saying he should be excluded from the women's CR because of his pc of GA, but because of his protected characteristics as a man.
The reference to male pattern criminality, is a bad point. It may be hard to give this point enough emphasis, this is part of the reason the Rs have been so intent on controlling language in this matter, it is harder to take on board that men who claim to be women are in fact men; if you call them transwomen and call them she. It is the law w/out a GRC is man is simply a man. He belongs in the subcategory of men. He is not a woman.
I'm sorry to labour this point, the reason I do this is that the Rs approach to language has not just been played out in this tribunal but has been played out up and down the land, it has become taboo, it makes it hard to hang on to the reality that transwomen are men. A TW with a GRC is simply and factually a man. To go back to the point for which the Rs on relying on Colemen, reading statistics applying to men as also applying to TIMs, it is unreasonable to object to generalisations on the basis of sex.