Sorry, I haven't RTFT. But I've been doing a bit of fossicking on the Reddit TransUK subreddit and found these comments, from about the only two transes on there who understand legal stuff and aren't just going "Rah rah rah! We won, Peggie lost, TERFs are fewmin!":
Protect-the-dollz
• 22h ago • Edited 22h ago
Re- 899- that is part of the section labelled 'The employers Dilemma' which outlines the legal problem facing employers.
The actual solution starts in 941 under "Balance Test''. For most of us, this will be by far the most important part of the judgement, because if it becom3s binding law, this is where the test for excluding us is (941-949)
It isn't good for us and we should be extremely wary of promoting Peggie over Kelly.
The judgement is a vindication for Dr Upton, an embarrassment for Forstater and Peggie but the reasoning is extremely problematic.
Finding that allowing a trans person to share a changing room with a terf constitutes harrassment of the terf on the part of an employer would have been considered a landmark defeat for us pre FWS.
It is a horrendous position and I sincerely hope Peggie is not appealed and Kelly instead goes on to be upheld as binding law.
If the reasoning in Peggie was adopted in Kelly Cunningham would have won that case.
That said, Terfs are going absolutely berserk over this and insisting that the judgement was written by AI and contains hallucinated quotes!
Which is great to see. Certainly good for morale watching the meltdown.
Just don't be suckered into the false dichotomy that whatever upsets them is good for us. It isn't a binary.
Protect-the-dollz
• 21h ago
That said, Terfs are going absolutely berserk over this and insisting that the judgement was written by AI and contains hallucinated quotes!
I regret typing this.
I went to check this, intending to send to a fellow lawyer friend so we could laugh at them together over lunch.
But it is true. Multiple quotes in the judgement are not in the cases they quote.
I didn't see anything that fundamentally underpinned the core of the judgement re us, but I have never seen that before.
Typos, and 'quotations of quotations'- yes, that happens.
But this is weird. I am not going to list each quote I have tested, as I don't want to make the terf's job easier for them, and ad I say, I don't think the false quotes actually make a material difference, but it's weird.
And obviously the following post got downvoted, so it's sort of hidden:
f-class
• 16h ago
I'm afraid the judgement is so bad, as in, the tribunal has literally made up quotes and interpreted laws so poorly, the entire thing is extremely unsound and will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
It's either sheer incompetence, prohibited use of AI or some other bizarre agenda.
Unusually, I suspect the judge may face disciplinary action given the highly irregular nature of it, which is relatively rare.
This situation does not help either side - it's going to need to be completely relitigated again, at a higher court, which causes a further issue in that judgements of the higher courts are binding on all other courts below, unlike the original tribunal judgement.
I would strongly recommend remaining neutral on this for now until there's some further announcements.
f-class
• 15h ago • Edited 15h ago
I'm disappointed that everyone has to go through the whole thing again because a Judge failed to do the basics.
That doesn't help anyone at all.
It isn't a question of being mad - it's simply an appalling judgement for BOTH sides.
It is inevitable that the judgement is going to be significantly revised on appeal - because some of the legal arguments / citations to support some of the conclusions and outcomes are demonstrably AI hallucinations or completely made up. That is just the reality of the shit situation the Judge has put everyone in.
As a legal professional for many decades - this is possibly the worst judgement I have ever seen produced, and NHS Fife's team will be feeling exactly the same. It's not the worst because one side won over another - it's just extremely bad law, downright inaccurate and fails to follow well established legal principles such as precedent.
I am even more disappointed that so many of you in this part of Reddit will feel vindicated and optimistic by this Judgement - when in a few months time, it's almost certainly going to be set aside. That's unacceptable and the judiciary should be held accountable.
f-class
• 14h ago
I don't think you're getting the sheer gravity of potential judicial misconduct here - it really is something very, very rare. I haven't seen anything like this in a 35 year legal career.
The Judgement is entirely flawed and is not sound whatsoever. Any high street lawyer would recognize this, and therefore won't be doing anything with it until it's been appealed.
This isn't really a question of the facts etc - it's more procedural - the legal processes around constructing and interpreting the precedent judgements referenced within is so bad, its truly dire. A first year law student would do better.
It's like a Judge has just found ChatGPT for the first time without realizing it can make mistakes and hallucinate. I very strongly suspect this Judge will quietly retire after this, it's that bad.
They're part of this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1pj0dcu/let_there_be_no_doubt_the_sandy_peggie_judgment/