The Times interview with lord hodge about Sc ruling

[Theswiveleyeballsinthesky]

I'm sorry I don't have a share token but includes this

"I and my two female colleagues who were the joint authors, went through the act section by section in considerable detail, asking ourselves which interpretation works," he explained.
"Was the Equality Act meant to treat a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate as a woman? And we came unanimously to the view that it didn't.

Here:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6727e7fb-aaf6-46bf-a6c5-1d7869b34a64?shareToken=fb5a91417c508c2755d9955a12753486

Hero. And courageous. A person unafraid to do the right thing.

Thank you for the share token, Igneo, and to the OP for bringing this very interesting interview to our attention.

I love his confidence in their decision.
I love that photo of him - you wouldn't want to mess with Lord Hodge, would you?😧

I suggest that it be made into a sign with the caption:
THIS IS THE WOMEN'S TOILET. THE MEN'S IS OVER THERE. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT IT, I'LL SEE YOU OUTSIDE...
or
THIS IS THE WOMEN'S TOILET. GO ON TRANSWOMAN - MAKE MY DAY.

Thank you for that. It's a very interesting article.

Thanks for sharing OP!

Fantastic, thanks for the share!

Fantastic, thanks for the share!

It doesn't say he thinks it's morally right for the Act to mean what it means, only that that is what it means. I'd love to know whether he thinks that his interpretation of sex should be imported into other UK enactments or instruments, but I expect he would just say 'I've not been asked to answer that question, so I won't'.

I've also wondered whether things would have gone differently if ScotGov cross-appealed, because a lot of the decision was driven by the two-tier GRC vs non-GRC problem. A rejection of the appeal based on self-ID would have been crazy but mostly self-consistent, apart from the pregnancy issue.

In other words, I still don't know for sure if their Lordships are GC, or just people focussed on making some difficult words make as much sense as possible.

I think the article makes a small but significant mistake when it says: "a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth". As I recall, the judgement says "sex at birth" not "sex recorded at birth". I suppose this is to make it clear that subsequent surgical or hormonal modifications make no difference.

That’s an interesting question.

I think, legally, sex recorded (ie registered) at birth is fine. Because people with a GRC don't get an alteration to their original registration, but a whole new additional registration. Whilst corrections of errors (whether clerical or due to an incorrect initial sex assignment) are applied directly to the original and take effect as if the registration had been correct from the very start.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw In other words, I still don't know for sure if their Lordships are GC, or just people focussed on making some difficult words make as much sense as possible.

I'm happy with them just being disinterested, sensible and fair, and I think that will make them agree with the GC side, as they did here.

But if sometimes their Lordships find against the GC view - well I suppose we have to take the rough with the smooth.

The judgment isn't about whether the 'winning' argument was GC or not really. It was about whether the Act made sense when you included transwomen with a GRC in the definition of 'woman'. A huge part of the argument illustrating that it didn't was the rights of women who are pregnant. That section of the EA would've made no sense if 'woman' = female at birth + men with a GRC.

If the GI argument had prevailed, transmen who get pregnant would've had no maternity rights, as they would be men in law.

Which then meant they had to apply the same definition throughout the Act, as it would've been even less coherent if one section said that it's birth sex which counts, and another which said that the GRC sex counted.

I think the drafters of the GRA really did mean it to be applied to equality legislation, but they made assumptions:

A woman with a GRC wouldn't get pregnant.

A man without a GRC wouldn't claim to be a woman.

All men with GRCs would be passable and emasculated.

Mission creep wrecked their project.

Thanks, Theswiveleyeballsinthesky - that was an interesting article, both in general and in particular. He was very clear, there's no ambiguity in what he said and it really is another nail in the trans zealots' coffin.

It was blindingly obvious to me even before the SC clarified the law that the only possible interpretation of sex in the Equality Act had to be biological sex. It has to be biological sex before you are able to define the protected characteristics of sexual orientation & gender reassignment. A GRC is meaningless.

YY.

Well, yes, I don't disagree. But where there is disagreement (pushed by believers of Stonewall Law), then you revert to the Supreme Court. They then apply common sense!

To me the coherence shows when a TiM - let's call him Beth, spends a period trying to 'live as a woman', but since Gender Identity isn't protected he's not allowed in female facilities. Then his two years are up and off he goes to get his Gender Recognition certificate. He comes back to work the day after and suddenly, despite being exactly the same person as he was two days earlier, is now allowed in women's facilities.

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if that is because "sex at birth" is only available to the law in the documentary form of "Sex recorded at birth". It's on such pinheads the money is made.

The fact that 'sex' could ever have meant anything other than biological sex - and here in Ireland, 'sex' can still mean 'whatever you want to be' - against all logic and scientific evidence is what is so crazy about the whole trans juggernaut that has taken over so many aspects of life.

That is one reason why it has been so distressing on an emotional as well as a political level - it's all so 'blindingly obvious as you say PrettyDamnCosmic, demonstrably daft, but key people and institutions suspended their critical thinking and basic common sense, with disastrous results for women in particular, but for wider society too.

The UKSC has reset things considerably, and the tide seems to be turning, but so much damage has been done to individuals, groups, society, and the meaning of words

The fact that 'sex' could ever have meant anything other than biological sex

The law doesn't concern itself with reality. If it did we'd be overrun by evidence based policies, and nobody wants that.

The law concerns itself with ... the law Which is why you have some laws where they have to redefine reality to ensure it can be legislated for.

Just look at how many different ways the word "public" can be diced and sliced in statutes.

There's case law. In practice, your biological sex is what it says on your original birth registration including any subsequent error corrections. GRC does not modify the original registration in any way.

Someone who can't access their registration eg a refugee might need to be tested/physically examined. There's case law for that too, setting out clear guidelines on how to sex a human, would you believe (thanks, April Ashley)?

Relying on the registration could result in oddities like Caster Semenya being technically biologically female, but she can still be legally excluded from women's spaces using the mechanism described by the SC in relation to transmen. It all works like a well-oiled machine, whatever your performatively baffled TRA friend might say.

A legal fiction is one thing. But passing a law that requires us all to pretend to believe something that isn't true (ie interpreting misgendering and demurral as non-WORIADS) is surely contrary to Art 9 ECHR.

As share tokens dont last here is an archive link https://archive.is/QBMMU