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.

Not really interested in us having the same discussion as we have had on any number of threads but ...

The Supreme Court ruling was about the word sex in the EA.

The ruling was about the contradicionts raised by the law created by the GRA that allowed those with a GRC to be a "legal" man or women through gender re-assignment.

The court decided that it was desciminatory for the protected characteristic of sex to be impinged on by those with a GRC.

So for the purposes of the EA, the word sex is biological.

However, those who drafted the EA had every intention of the word sex being impinged on by those with a GRC. If they hadn't meant that, then they wouldn't have made the tiny concession that where "proportionate" biological women where permitted to have biolgocial female sex only services and facilities.

So the Supreme Court ruling gave back equality to each of the protected characteristic (although only sex had been undermined by another) within the EA.

What isn't clear and probably wont be even after we find out the guidelines the EHRC are when published, is whether TRAs will focus on how the EA doesn't apply to any number of situations.

Sexual orientation was also affected. And, TRAs already kicking off about workplace regulations.....

Good article. What sprang out at me was that it said that third spaces would be needed for trans people. No mention that this ruling has meant women can have back their single sex spaces, which show how deeply embedded trans ideology is in the media - it's always about trans, never about women.

That made me think he might be some sort of believer, because he uncritically accepts that a TW in the gents is out of the question. Why?

That part wasn't a quote from Hodge though - was it the journalist's interpretation?

Good point.

it also reminds me that the GRA relies on the declaration of ‘living as’ a member of the opposite sex forever but then they ‘accidentally’ forgot to include any penalty for a false declaration or any mechanism to reverse the legal process.

They seemed to take the trans people’s word for it that there was absolutely no chance that anyone would ever make a fraudulent application or change their mind due to the supposedly rigorous process but then attempted to remove the rigorous process with self id. Obviously, despite the claims of the trans activists, the process is not actually rigorous.

My bad! It was the journalist's description of the decision. 😳

A woman with a GRC wouldn't get pregnant.

It does rather beggar belief that a woman who wants to present as a man would want to do something as womanly as get pregnant. Wasn't someone refused a GRC on this basis recently?

@Grammarnut I noticed this too.

Quote: “In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, for the purposes of the act, a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth — that is, biological sex. It meant that public bodies, providing toilet or bathing spaces, had to provide separate facilities for transgender people, a ruling that is still being argued across the country.”

Isn’t this a rather odd paragraph to write? The SC ruling didn’t state that bodies needed to make third spaces for trans people, just that they had to use the toilets that corresponded with their sex. No mention of the protections afforded to women or more serious cases where this is a lot more pressing ie. prisons, rape crisis centres.

Otherwise a very interesting article to read. Thank you for sharing!

The only part where I eyerolled was:

“I was aware that there would be criticism of our judgment, which is why, as the senior author, I said, ‘I will take the flak’. And though I don’t go on social media, I understand there’s a certain amount of flak directed at me there, and I was aware there would be consequences.”

I imagine Hodge has had little to no flak directed at him personally - or if he has, it's nothing in comparison with the vitriol thrown at prominent GC women. I bet most TRAs couldn't even tell you his name. Had the senior judge had been a woman, she'd have been singled out for repeated, highly personal attacks as a TERF by now.

Yes, of course, but in the explanation for the ruling it was about sex as a protected characteristic was being discriminated against within the EA!

In the first couple of weeks after the ruling the level of vitriol directed at the judges (and Lord Hodge in particular) on social and some mainstream media was truly shocking.

It’s now settled into the narrative that the judgement is evidence of institutional transphobia and increasing far right capture in law and politics.

I’m on the fringes of a few ‘be kind’ leaning groups on FB and similar accounts on Instagram and the utter lack of comprehension and general misinterpretation of the ruling was, and continues to be, dire.

Many from the GI side exist in such a bubble that (unlike FWR regulars) they were blissfully unaware of all that led up to the FWS SC case and they were completely blindsided and bewildered by the judgement. For them, it really did seem to come out of nowhere and the only possible explanation for them is that the process was hopelessly biased (no trans voices were allowed etc) and led by judges who are personally stupid and motivated by hate or are weak and influenced by dark political forces.

Very few of them have bothered to understand the background to the ruling or read the ruling itself and, in these spaces, the blame is being put squarely on the judges themselves, with their personal integrity being smeared to oblivion.

I agree that Lord Hodge is insulated to a certain degree and is not facing the same sort of relentless personal attack as longstanding women’s campaigners but, to be fair to him, he’s not wrong to say he’s taking some flak.

Absolutely. He explains it in such a clear, concise way too!

It’s almost as if the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ describe two significantly different things, and that the meaning of those words isn’t interchangeable on a whim, isn’t it?

Revolutionary, yes!

Thanks for your thoughtful summary which echoes what I've read and heard from online circles and friends. As with the Cass Report, there's no engagement with the real substance of the process, just horror and rejection of its "transphobic" conclusions.

I think my point stands though in that Hodge the person isn't in the sights of TRAs. They'll say he's not done his job properly but I doubt he's getting any volume of deeply personal attacks, targeted threats of sexual violence or suggestions that what he really needs is ...[you can make up the rest].. that a woman in his position would.

Of course I don't have access to his inbox, maybe I'm totally wrong about this.

it also reminds me that the GRA relies on the declaration of ‘living as’ a member of the opposite sex forever but then they ‘accidentally’ forgot to include any penalty for a false declaration or any mechanism to reverse the legal process.

No penalty because it's a word soup. How the holy fuck do you prove someone has "lived as a woman". Or more to the point hasn't ? Unless you want to revert back to pink for girls and blue for boys amongst all the stereotypes of what a woman should be. All to be argued in literally forensic detail over a tsunami of court cases.

The GRA dates from 2004 and hasn't aged well, especially the "lived as a woman" concept. I think it was easier to interpret this, and to follow it, as society existed at that time. I don't believe any parliamentary drafting team would give time to such ambiguous text now, and I also think they didn't appreciate how unlcear it would become.

The "living as a woman" thing has always baffled me. 2004 wasn't that long ago, and if I'd been more aware of what was going on, it wouldn't have made sense to me then either.

I've been trying to find if there was any discussion of this concept in parliament at the time, but I haven't managed to find anything. In one debate David Lammy goes on about "living in the opposite gender" as though this requires no explanation. Interestingly, Lynne Jones, another Labour MP who was in favour of the bill, talks about "living in role", so acknowledging that this is all just about people pretending to be the opposite sex.

Gender Recognition Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament

If you go back 40 or 50 years, "living as a woman" was a requirement before having surgery, and seems to have consisted of wearing dresses and make up and using women's toilets.

If you strip away all the stereotypes and using women's spaces, how does a man really "live as a woman"? And why are people still using such a ridiculous phrase as though it actually has meaning, but are never willing to define what they mean? It's still part of the requirement to get a GRC, but now seems to consist of changing your name to one suitable for the opposite sex and using it on your utility bills. How can anyone seriously claim that this is "living as a woman"?

Even 40 to 50 years ago women often wore trousers. You would have to go back to pre WW2 years to find women who virtually never wore them.

Yes, but until quite recently men who wanted to be women said that they were expected to wear dresses/skirts before being approved for surgery. And use women's toilets. It was all part of "living in role" as Lynne Jones described it.

And only a bloke could have ever thought that wearing dresses, and using female loos was living as a woman.

Quite. But the doctors who were treating them and making these stupid requirements were male.

They obviously didn't ask women if they wanted transvestites who were living full-time 'in role' using their toilets.

I think they just assumed it would be too humiliating for any man to wear women’s clothes so no one would do it unless they were genuine, I think someone in the House of Lords did argue that it could be taken advantage of but no one took any notice.

I think one was (Norman) Lord Tebbit.