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.

There is a very fine line between cross dressing and being “trans”. If it’s occasionally, then no. But if you are “transitioning” there have been occasions when it’s been upheld in lower courts, such as Jaguar Landrover, which was never appealed so TRAs (wrongly I believe) claim that “non binary” people are covered by the EA. The man was covered because he fit the normal definition of a “transsexual” in the EA.

This shows such a basic lack of legal knowledge that the writer must be being disingenuous.

I think the reference to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was included in that letter because, until the SC ruling, it was used to justify 'trans-inclusion' for non-GRC holders.

Example: TW 'can't' use the gents and not allowed to use the ladies. Nowhere to pee. Worse off than other men without the PC of GR, and also worse off than the opposite (female) sex.

PC of GR very wide, can self-declare. But getting a GRC requires not just living in the acquired gender (gas bills!) but also convincing a doctor re gender dysphoria. Unlikely without some changes in appearance.

Oh please. There have been whole threads about this.

And quoted in newspaper articles.

More and more being on FWR is like ground hog day.

This is the wording of the EA:

'7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.'

The wording is stupidly woolly (my highlighting above). 'Proposing to undergo' is not defined. Neither is '...changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

What other attributes could they be? Who decides if your changed 'attribute' is sufficiently womanly (or manly, for transmen)?

You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

Just worth noting that where a later law contradicts an earlier on, the later one is used.

You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

That is Stonewall's law.

The reality is that the expectation is that people are on the route to gaining a GRC by undergoing reassignment, ie some medical intervention.

The notion that this catergory is about clothing is Stonewall's.

But there is no doubt that the sucess of Stonewall and others has led to a blurring of the difference between those with an identity and those who in the past would have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

However many times you post this on difference threads it doesn't change the reality.

Ignoring the threads that talk about it only applying to around 10,000 or even the "i've been let down by the law" by someone with a GRC.

That is in fact the problem.

That thanks to Stonewall's law being the one most people think is the law is why employers and venues, have thought it is about indentifying.

Some people shop lift, and the law doesn't do anything about it. But that doesn't mean shop lifting isn't illegal.

'You don't need a GRC to qualify for protection under the EA.

That is Stonewall's law.'

No it's not. It's the actual law.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

'People who hold a GRC will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but it is not necessary to have a GRC to have this protected characteristic.'

There have been whole threads of misinformation. I can only conclude that you have a very slim grasp of most of this stuff, so frequently, demonstrably wrong are you in these misguided proclamations.

It is not “Stonewall Law” that you don’t need a GRC to benefit from the EA pc of “gender reassignment”. It has always been the case. But please do refute me with an actual quote from the EA to prove your claim @IwantToRetire- it shouldn’t be too difficult for you, no?

Completely made up nonsense.

The reason that anyone spoke about the amount of people with a GRC at all in law is that they were the only trans people to be technically affected by the Supreme Court ruling, based on the definition of SEX not GENDER REASSIGNMENT. The belief, which had to go all the way up to the SC to be refuted, was that men with a GRC were a different class of legal women under the pc of sex, not that they had the PC or didn’t have the PC of GR. That was not the issue at hand.

I think if you focus on this point, it's really easy to see why the SC judgment went the way it did.

Trans people without a GRC are, both biologically and legally, their birth sex. So a single sex space for women clearly does not include male people without a GRC because they fail to meet the criteria whichever way you look at it.

And there's no way to tell the difference between a trans person with a GRC and a trans person without one for the purposes of single sex spaces.

Exactly, and they talked about this aspect at the hearing, the first time I’ve ever heard this thrashed out before, which is online if anyone wants to see it.

I think the inclusion of lesbian rights by intervenors in this case really helped clarify this, because of course it sounds ridiculous that you’d be attracted to someone because they had a certificate, whether or not you were aware of it.