Gender again. Sorry!

[spen666]

I previously copied two paragraphs lifted directly from the judgment including the paragraph numbers.

The first, the outcome of the test of the legitimate aim.



Secondly the failure to implement.

Still waiting for the part of the judgement that ruled the trust policy was lawful


As @AuroraSaab says it does not say what you claim it says. you said it ruled the trust policy was lawful. It makes no such ruling at all.

 

[monkers]

Still waiting for the part of the judgement that ruled the trust policy was lawful


As @AuroraSaab says it does not say what you claim it says. you said it ruled the trust policy was lawful. It makes no such ruling at all.

As I have explained. They said it had a legitimate aim. In ordinary language of the common man it is lawful. However as I have explained over and over again, that is not the correct word in legal interpretation of the judgment.

As Aurora found, the claim in the submission was that the policy was 'lawful'. I explained that the use of the quote marks that it was placed in showed that it could not be deemed lawful or unlawful, since the legal test is to see if it has a legitimate aim. It is conduct which is found to be lawful or unlawful. The judge found the conduct to be unlawful.

Let's face it, the impact assessment was very poor, no proper attempt had been made for reasonable adjustments following the complaints. The conduct of the management was very poor.

Having read the conduct of the complainants, especially Bethany Hutchinson, this was also very poor - not a winning combo.

The person who comes out of this their reputation more or less intact is Rose Henderson.

 

[spen666]

I've worked hard enough on the explanation

You sure have and no one can doubt your effort to argue that black is white and that the Tribunal ruled the opposite of what they actually did rule

but if you are not interested in truth, then I'm not so bothered.

Hilarious from someone who has repeatedly claimed the tribunal ruled completely different from what they did

 

[AuroraSaab]

It couldn't be clearer.
The overall TIW policy having a legitimate aim - that of trying to be supportive to transgender staff - doesn't make the policy of allowing access to facilities of the other sex lawful. Quotation marks have nothing to do with it.

 

[Ianonabike]

no one can doubt your effort to argue that black is white and that the Tribunal ruled the opposite of what they actually did rule

A speciality of trans rights activists. I don't bother engaging with clearly bad faith actors, but salute those who get their hands dirty.

Hilarious from someone who has repeatedly claimed the tribunal ruled completely different from what they did

Bromptonaut's attempt to throw shade on the judgment was also on the amusing end of the spectrum.

Third spaces.

Retraining for Rose “Why aren’t you getting changed?" Henderson: which door?