Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I don't know whether McCloud or Whittles's application had any merit or not

However, that did not seem to be a deterrent to you forming a negative opinion.

 

[CXRAndy]

diagnosis of disorders of sexual development (DSD).

They are sexual disorders , not a new gender

 

[AuroraSaab]

However, that did not seem to be a deterrent to you forming a negative opinion.

The court formed a negative opinion and declined their application to intervene. There's no automatic right to be allowed to intervene so until they publish their application you've no evidence it had merit. You're just of the opinion that they should have been allowed to intervene simply because they are both trans identifying. That is not in itself grounds. Makes you wonder why Stonewall didn't apply.

 

[monkers]

The court formed a negative opinion and declined their application to intervene. There's no automatic right to be allowed to intervene so until they publish their application you've no evidence it had merit. You're just of the opinion that they should have been allowed to intervene simply because they are both trans identifying. That is not in itself grounds. Makes you wonder why Stonewall didn't apply.

You keep repeating mantra to the point where it is becoming increasingly ludicrous.

This even though you admit you have no idea what was submitted, or what the SC thought of it.

I haven't said that I think they should have been permitted. I have said that it is standard practice to hear evidence from both sides in such cases, and accordingly I would have expected that. Why do you simply make everything up and expect to be believed?

No it doesn't make me wonder why Stonewall didn't apply - more fantasy thinking.

 

[AuroraSaab]

An estimated 1 in 2,000 children born each year are neither boy nor girl — they are intersex, part of a group of about 60 conditions that fall under the diagnosis of disorders of sexual development (DSD).
https://scienceoxygen.com/how-many-real-hermaphrodites-are-there/

From your linked site above. I'm sure we're all convinced now we've seen the scientific accuracy of your source.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You keep repeating mantra to the point where it is becoming increasingly ludicrous.

This even though you admit you have no idea what was submitted, or what the SC thought of it.

What the SC presumably thought was that it didn't provide anything that either the Scottish government nor Amnesty weren't already going to argue.

I haven't said that I think they should have been permitted. I have said that it is standard practice to hear evidence from both sides in such cases, and accordingly I would have expected that.

Yes, and the 'other side' was the Scottish government and Amnesty. Being trans identifying is not in itself a reason to be given a platform as an intervener. You are reluctant to accept that the SC are not beholden to let everybody chip in if the arguments are already going to be made by the main parties. Presumably McCloud and Whittle weren't offering anything new.

 

[monkers]

What the SC presumably thought was that it didn't provide anything that either the Scottish government nor Amnesty weren't already going to argue.



Yes, and the 'other side' was the Scottish government and Amnesty. Being trans identifying is not in itself a reason to be given a platform as an intervener. You are reluctant to accept that the SC are not beholden to let everybody chip in if the arguments are already going to be made by the main parties. Presumably McCloud and Whittle weren't offering anything new.

My word you are tedious. I have to realise why my aunt was frustrated.

The Scottish Ministers were not defending trans rights per se - they were defending the decisions they made after consulting and taking advice from the EHRC, who were also in court trying to defend themselves from the awkward position they created.

Amnesty contributed a note. The bulk of the submission came from FWS and others who had permission to intervene.

No trans representative groups or individuals were accepted by the court. This is extraordinary. Now do please kindly stop this ridiculous and repetitive line of argument.

 

[classic33]

My word you are tedious. I have to realise why my aunt was frustrated.

The Scottish Ministers were not defending trans rights per se - they were defending the decisions they made after consulting and taking advice from the EHRC, who were also in court trying to defend themselves from the awkward position they created.

Amnesty contributed a note. The bulk of the submission came from FWS and others who had permission to intervene.

No trans representative groups or individuals were accepted by the court. This is extraordinary. Now do please kindly stop this ridiculous and repetitive line of argument.

It'll never work, you realise that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No trans representative groups or individuals were accepted by the court. This is extraordinary.

It's not extraordinary at all. The court isn't required to accept submissions just because of someone's lived experience. The court didn't hear from any individuals on either side. No trans representative groups actually applied to intervene. Perhaps McCloud would have fared better drafting a submission on behalf of a trans group.