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.

DF often complained that DM wouldn't wear skirts. She was making her own (and mine) clothes even when it wasn't a fad.

Yes. I didn't make that clear. Sorry!

I think that many men uncritically accept that trans identifying men can't use men's toilets because they personally don't want them in there. Pretending that it is about trans identifying men's safety and dignity allows them to kid themselves that they are kind and progressive and not at all uncomfortable sharing toilets and changing rooms with gender non conforming, possibly gay men.

I think that many men uncritically accept that trans identifying men can't use men's toilets because they personally don't want them in there.

But no one ever bothered to find out what the men thought - the TiM whined that he couldn't use the Gents and Management assumed that the women would put up with it. Until this last year.....

I just wonder how many of us women have been empowered by FWS and Sandie Peggie?

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. ...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.

Many from the GI side exist in such a bubble that they are blissfully unaware that their wants impinge upon others. Very few of them have bothered to understand that others have rights which they cannot just help themselves to.

RMW letter to Lord Reed about the judgment and the article in The Times...

From..

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1967596590337532361?t=pRWUt0Hy2x06XlGiCmdChw&s=19

That response to the utter drivel written by RMW is perfect.

It's the kind of thing an arrogant 6th form boy with limited life experience but an over developed sense of personal privilege would write.

What a clown.

The "will of parliament" aspect is really important. "The will of parliament" is a shorthand for "what a reasonable parliament must have intended by the words it used". Not what any particular parliament or person did or did not intend. This is addressed in detail in paragraph 9 in FWS, quoting from a 2023 case in the Supreme court:

"...But none of these external aids displace the meanings conveyed by the words of a statute that, after consideration of that context, are clear and unambiguous and which do not produce absurdity. …Statutory interpretation involves an objective assessment of the meaning which a reasonable legislature as a body would be seeking to convey in using the statutory words which are being considered."

It doesn't matter what Hansard says, or what the Civil Servant in charge of pushing the legislation through says, or what any MPs say collectively or individually. None of that is relevant to the task of interpreting what Parliament "intended" by the wording of a law.

There is, however, a problem with someone like Lord Hodge giving this interview, and I think it was a mistake do so. Such an interview and the explanations within it allows for "doubt", and questioning. In the same way that "no" is a complete sentence, so is FWS. The SC has spoken, and that should be the end of the matter.

The Hansard reference was a particularly bad mistake for a qualified lawyer to make. Is it deliberate dishonesty, or the product of some very powerful wishful thinking?

Even if their Lordships could reply (which I agree would be unseemly) it's never going to convince the credulous intended audience for this farrago, and the author knows that.

It doesn't matter what Hansard says, or what the Civil Servant in charge of pushing the legislation through says, or what any MPs say collectively or individually. None of that is relevant to the task of interpreting what Parliament "intended" by the wording of a law.

That's all very well if you believe that those in Parliament play by the rules.

But as those who took part in drafting it said they knew exactly what they were doing, ie creating the fiction of "legal women" (and probably intended as a trojan horse for the future) and wanted trans women to be treated as women.

We were or are lucky that our language has the word sex and that traditionally it has means biological fact, not identities.

Not forgetting is that the aim of the drafters meant that what they creaed was that within the act the protected characteristic was then discrimiated against by the concept of "legal women". ie no other protected characteristic has its rights impinged on by another one.

So the Judges picked up on the intended word soup, and said sorry words have a meaning.

We are lucky that at the time of drafting the bill the use of the word sex, as in sex discrimination, was still common / usual.

Were it only being drafted now you can bet the rainbow coalition would be fighting for it to be the protected characterisic of gender, having worked so hard over the past few decades to pretend that sex and gender are the same thing.

Think how much closed it would have been if we had had the protected characteristc og "gender" and the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

What would the Judges has said then.

I think we do have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. I think the intention was to protect such a person e.g. for being singled out for redundancy for no other reason than they chose to dress as they thought a woman would do.

'[The Times] carried word of my transition'

rejoice, rejoice, for word is carried in The Times of Robin's transition!

deary, deary me

‘The intervenors represented minority views…’ 😆

I think you should look up the EA and read the definition of gender reassignment. It isn't about clothes. It is the process of undergoing reassignment or on the path to do so.

The difference of this, ie about someone assuming an identity by more than just clothes is still never the same as someone who is biologically that sex.

That's why it is referred to as gender, a social construct.

Sex is a biological reality.

Is “withing” some kind of legal technical word I’ve never heard, or has White sent a letter to a senior judge, as well as spreading it all over the internet, with a careless typo in his very first point?

'Undergoing reassignment or intending to do so' isn't defined in the Act, AFAIK. Therefore, we can't say whether just clothes gives someone protection of it or not. It could be argued that wearing clothes of the opposite sex is the start of that journey (and how can - lack of - intent be proven?).

The GRA was revolutionary for its time in not requiring surgery for the process of gender reassignment to be happening. The intention bit is rather extraordinary but meant in practice that people who have made no changes at all in their lives or presentation could not be excluded from certification for that reason.

I sometimes think about the fact that my son was born the same year the GRA became law. The two events seem to belong to different worlds.

The answer to your question is that "Robin Moira White (Ms)" has indeed sent such a letter with more than one typo.

Also notable is his careless use of language, particularly the sentence, "With respect to Nicholas Linklater who interviewed Lord Hodge, who is not a lawyer, the piece leaves far more questions unanswered than it answers." This is a strange assertion to make about a Supreme Court Justice.

I can't imagine paying good money to engage a barrister who produces this level of work.

I copied it from the Act as on the Government web site.

At the moment there are only around 10,000 people who are part of this protected characteristic.

And they are the only ones who it could be said have been negatively impacted by the Supreme Court Judgement. ie they were promised a legal reality that real life has told them they dont have.

Everyone else who wants to cross dress or whatever, is not covered.

At the moment there are only around 10,000 people who are part of this protected characteristic.

Even the WEC referred to this.

But what they didn't do, even though they are spearheading the rainbow revolution, is talk about how or why all those with the ever expanding indentities have any rights to ask for anything different from everyone else.

Any more that Goths can ask for special treatment.

Only those who have swallowed Stonewall's law think that they do.

This sort of assumption has been a significant blind spot in all kinds of legislation over the past, maybe three decades? Maybe longer?

Things meant to be helpful for any kind of stigmatised or minority group have been approached as if there is no way they could be used for ill. For exa,ple, the human rights tribunals that Yaniv used to intimidate women. No one seems to have stopped and though, gee, I wonder if someone could use this mechanism to harass people, how to we protect against that.

Over the last number of years where I live we are also seeing something similar with access to information requests to the government. They are being used in ways that are really not what was intended, in some cases to do the work a journalist should be doing himself, in other cases to overwhelm government offices with busy work.

The assumption seems to be, no one would pretend to be oppressed to get something, and no one who is oppressed would be a bad actor and use help in a dishonest way.

I think you should look up the EA and read the definition of gender reassignment. It isn't about clothes. It is the process of undergoing reassignment or on the path to do so.

Since you quote me, I thought I should reply although I think others have answered this. It begs the question of what exactly is the process of undergoing reassignment or on the path to do so? Previously it was about wearing women's clothes and using the ladies loos for two years. Now it's about changing your documentation, and insisting that you are a laydee. Or so it seems!

I am not sure whether I have read the Equality Act but I most certainly have read every single page of the Supreme Court judgement, so that I knew exactly what the Court was stating.

'Undergoing reassignment or intending to do so' isn't defined in the Act, AFAIK.

A lot of women wear trousers, have short hair and don't wear make up - like me right now in fact. Am I undergoing a process of reassignment today? Does anyone know my intentions? Will the process be cancelled when I next put a dress on? This just highlights how absurd it all is.

Where are you getting this 10000 people from? This isn’t true.