Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

'Monkers has died. I'm going to post on their account. Prove that I don't exist'.

There is no new identity to discover. You're Monica/Monkers. Several of us on here have joined the dots and know who you are.
At least the trans identifying niece isn't so much of a stretch. Must be a relief only having to pretend about the lawyer bit.

I very much doubt that.

 

[classic33]

Monica was open about who she was. She wasn't hiding anything. She was a well known local figure and people would always come up to her in the street for a hug and a chat. It would make no sense for me to try to retrospectively hide her identity.

She talked on here about where she lived, the work she had done, the charity she supported, the political party she worked with. You said that you've catalogued her previous avatars (creepy!) including a photograph of herself. That doesn't surprise that she put a photograph of herself here - though I don't remember seeing it.

But you just hate not knowing who I am. I have no trust in you to disclose any snippet of information beyond what I've said - and I don't break my own rules. I'm cautious and with good reason.

That is one claim I'd like to see proved, I can't remember ever seeing a photograph, of a person, used as her avatar on cyclechat.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That is one claim I'd like to see proved, I can't remember ever seeing a photograph, of a person, used as her avatar on cyclechat.

I think I can recall an avatar for Monica/Monkers that, in the style of the time, was actually the person posting.

Whether it was CC or one of the, as it were, predecessor forums is a different question.

 

[icowden]

But you just hate not knowing who I am. I have no trust in you to disclose any snippet of information beyond what I've said - and I don't break my own rules. I'm cautious and with good reason.

If Aurora is correct, I'd like to be the first to congratulate you on your literary skills. The verve with which you have apparently created two completely different people with full and rich back stories, different sources of knowledge and writing styles is absolutely A1.

Or of course, you and Monkers *could* just be two different people...

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've no interest in doxing you. If the gullible on here want to believe your improbable tales they are welcome to. I'm simply tired of your pretence that your (invariably wrong) opinions on the law carry some legal weight. Stick to giving your opinion, just like everyone else; stop pretending it's anything more than that.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

I very much doubt that.

You're not alone. For the record, I believe Monica and N were/are different people. The difference in the style of writing is so obvious to me.

I'm sure this will get a laugh emoji from the usual suspects. Oh well.

 

[classic33]

I've no interest in doxing you. If the gullible on here want to believe your improbable tales they are welcome to. I'm simply tired of your pretence that your (invariably wrong) opinions on the law carry some legal weight. Stick to giving your opinion, just like everyone else; stop pretending it's anything more than that.

You'll you be doing the same I take it?

 

[monkers]

I've no interest in doxing you. If the gullible on here want to believe your improbable tales they are welcome to. I'm simply tired of your pretence that your (invariably wrong) opinions on the law carry some legal weight. Stick to giving your opinion, just like everyone else; stop pretending it's anything more than that.

We ought have no difficulty expressing opinions. I have a preference for calling my points observations. Here as some of mine. Sex Matters have made a number of recent assertions about the law that I have tended to disagree with, and still do. My predictions, and they are predictions rather than forecasts or assertions, have turned out to be sometimes been pretty accurate, not just in terms of outcomes but also legal basis. This in spite of any opinion of your own that is to the contrary.

I once had the privilege of hearing Lady Hale speak - a very wise woman indeed. She said ''the law is not single-minded, though perhaps too many of us judges are.'' It was typical Lady Hale, a pearl of wisdom within one short but carefully crafted phrase, and memorable guidance for those coming up after her.

The record is showing that neither the gender critical campaigners such as Sex Matters, Christian Concern, Allison Bailey et al are not having a good run. Not that the Good Law Project are doing so much better. I think the yo-yo effect that I've been talking about will continue because a legal landscape of competing legal basis within the related legislature has the effect of an unclear picture.

Accordingly courts are making confusing use of the Workplace Regulations and the EqA. Simply put they are quite different beasts. The Workplace Regulations are being read down as 'rights'. They are not rights they are duties. The Workplace Regulations expresses the duties placed on infrastructure. Within its texts, it does not concern itself with the legal status of users in terms of their biology.

Although you've challenged my knowledge concerning legal basis, this is something you could and should check for yourself. There is no need for you to take my word for anything, but I will just gently say, that if you value no opinion so highly as to consider such opinion, then you should take your own out onto the veranda and beat the shoot out of it with a cricket bat to test it. (I think I'm quoting somebody here but for the life of me remember whom).

Therefore I tend to agree with those judges who have said that there is no positive right for any user to use any facility under the regulations. The legal basis for inclusion or exclusion is not to be found there.

If we are looking for legal precedence from the Supreme Court, then we already had that before 2025. Lady Hale and Lord Bingham had already laid down that precedent in 2004. They did so within the gap between the GRA making its way through final stages and its eventual enactment.

The courts do have a habit of surprising some of us. Legal opinion varies between lawyers with similar and experiences. If legal opinions were never in variance, then all SC court judgments would always be unanimous. Indeed we wouldn't need hearings with five top judges to agree a judgment.

Therefore my observation (rather than an opinion) for this evening is this, that if a Supreme Court meet to decide what the will of parliament was in passing the GRA, then they could have had the courtesy owed to the highest judges in the land who had already considered that very issue. They very nearly always do. My opinion is that they should do so, and the SC in 2025 could have done so more carefully. In fact had they done so, that would have reduced their own burden.