Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Shaman
Given that none of those things - the diagnosis, the hormones, the name change - are necessary to be regarded as transgender (except by you it seems) they are irrelevant. There's still no discernible difference between a man with those things and any other man. The level of commitment is irrelevant - their sex remains male.

Dr Upton doesn't have a GRC by the way. It's not the presence of a transwoman either, it's the presence of a male that's the issue.

Dr Upton wasn't pretending to be anyone. Her status was familiar to her colleagues. She hadn't progressed to having a GRC, but I know that you know the difficulty there - there's at least a seven year waiting list.

No evidence was presented that Beth Upton was acting anything other than professionally. It is quite wrong to suggest that she is a predator. The judge has made the call here, Peggie was harassing Upton contrary to the Equality Act.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, it was a matter of technical argument of statutory draftsmanship rather than one based on any philosophical nature of ''who or what a woman is''. The UKSC made no legal definition of sex.
 

AuroraSaab

Pharaoh
Nobody has claimed Upton is a predator, only that he is a male. Which he is, and which is why women's spaces are not for him.

The judge made no such finding but I'll wait for the appeal rather than listen to more spin from the forum's imaginary Rumpole.
 

monkers

Shaman
The full judgement runs to over 300 pages. I've yet to get to first base

Mrs Peggie seems to me to have lost except on a few points to do with how the employer handled the matter.

The evidence of Dr Upton, in regard to the key incident, was preferred to that of Mrs Peggie.

Same here. I currently don't have the time to read the whole judgment - still house hunting. However the quote I posted earlier is from the BBC.
 
Top Bottom