S
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
I'm guessing a few people were refraining from commenting on that after the understanding that was achieved on the gender thread.
AuroraSaab
Squire
The full accounts of the proceedings are here if anybody wants to follow the arguments in full day by day. The general topic has already been discussed ad infinitum in previous threads.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/tribunaltweets
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/tribunaltweets
OP
OP
"slow horse" aka "another sam"
Guest
Could you tl;dr that, por favor?
Beebo
Guru
It over 1000 pages long.
Mainly going in circles, with no real consensus.
Whatever the Supreme count decides, someone will be pissed off. It’s impossible to square the circle.
OP
OP
"slow horse" aka "another sam"
Guest
Personally I think a lot more people need to be pissed off.
Attachments
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
I'd rather be pissed off than pissed on.
OP
OP
"slow horse" aka "another sam"
Guest
Two views of the same event, on the appropriate platforms:
View: https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1861719316585906441
[🦋 Pretend this is an embedded skeet 🦋]
https://bsky.app/profile/reactiveashley.bsky.social/post/3lbwd7oedla2k
View: https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1861719316585906441
[🦋 Pretend this is an embedded skeet 🦋]
https://bsky.app/profile/reactiveashley.bsky.social/post/3lbwd7oedla2k
But is it art?
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
But is it art?
[/QUOTE]
I think Spaced were parodying Leigh Bowery doing that sort of stuff about 25 years ago.
[/QUOTE]
I think Spaced were parodying Leigh Bowery doing that sort of stuff about 25 years ago.
OP
OP
"slow horse" aka "another sam"
Guest
Videos: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.html
Yesterday's sessions aren't up as of this post at silly o'clock, but I expect links will appear at the bottom of that page.
Helpful as legal training would be to make sense of it all, a familiarity with Alice in Wonderland may suffice.
The decision probably won't be in till next spring. Meanwhile I think everyone knows what a woman is, even those who suppose not to under cover of law.
The gender thread is an education in itself, at least what I've managed to read of it. A search tells me that in almost 16k posts, nobody mentioned the Dentons document, a legal playbook for activists. It's very enlightening.
I can appreciate the lack of enthusiasm on this topic, but it isn't going away. It's even thought to have helped push Trump over the line, some so disillusioned with the Democrats they either didn't bother to vote, or figured the orange man was right about at least one thing, and that thing was good enough for them.
Yesterday's sessions aren't up as of this post at silly o'clock, but I expect links will appear at the bottom of that page.
Helpful as legal training would be to make sense of it all, a familiarity with Alice in Wonderland may suffice.
The decision probably won't be in till next spring. Meanwhile I think everyone knows what a woman is, even those who suppose not to under cover of law.
The gender thread is an education in itself, at least what I've managed to read of it. A search tells me that in almost 16k posts, nobody mentioned the Dentons document, a legal playbook for activists. It's very enlightening.
I can appreciate the lack of enthusiasm on this topic, but it isn't going away. It's even thought to have helped push Trump over the line, some so disillusioned with the Democrats they either didn't bother to vote, or figured the orange man was right about at least one thing, and that thing was good enough for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
Is this going to be a gender thread V2.0?
monkers
Legendary Member
Only because in Victorian Britain they'd lock you up in the tower for saying 'sex'. ''These days they arrest you and throw you in jail if you say you're English''.
These days, people are prepared to argue in courts endlessly that parliament never intended it to be that people are the sex it clearly states on their birth certificates. The Scottish Courts have told them twice that it does. Apparently that wasn't good enough. Being told three times that they're wrong still won't be good enough.
Still it's Karen Joanne Rowling's money and taxpayers' money that they are wasting. Judgement as soon as the poor bored Justices can be bothered.
monkers
Legendary Member
For any one who is actually interested, a neutral written submission of evidence has been provided to the Supreme Court by Amnesty International which pretty clearly sets out the argument.
That document is 20 pages of history and argument. It's tragic to put you through reading it, so here is the conclusion of Amnesty International in their submitted evidence ...
E. CONCLUSION
49. For the reasons articulated above, AIUK respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the lower Courts’ construction.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2024-11/UKSC 2024.0042 Written Intervention - Amnesty International (as filed).pdf?VersionId=vAan9v7XZcPctjLYOcu9ZXS1NANvBHfc
That document is 20 pages of history and argument. It's tragic to put you through reading it, so here is the conclusion of Amnesty International in their submitted evidence ...
E. CONCLUSION
49. For the reasons articulated above, AIUK respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the lower Courts’ construction.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2024-11/UKSC 2024.0042 Written Intervention - Amnesty International (as filed).pdf?VersionId=vAan9v7XZcPctjLYOcu9ZXS1NANvBHfc
spen666
Well-Known Member
Perhaps to speed up court proceedings, get rid of backlogs in criminal courts etc, all submissions should be limited to the length of a single tweet - could be interesting to see submissions on this basis in any case
monkers
Legendary Member
It's a point of view. However some people might think that 140 characters including spaces rather long. Of course it could be covered in four words - ''trans women are women''.
In the spirit of trying to be helpful, and find some level of agreement with you, I invite you and other readers to compare relevants laws such as the GRA2004 and the EA2010 with their motor insurance certificate.
There is the section that first lists who and what is covered - the application. Example, the policyholder, spouse, named drivers, the vehicle or vehicles, the selected extent of cover, legal protection, windscreen, etc.
The is the section that lists exceptions - the disapplication. Example, Acts of God, use in connection with hire or reward, use in connection with the motor trade, racing, etc.
The EA2010 is a consolidating act of prior legislation attempting to bring various prior discrimination law into one place without modification of those acts. The DDA1995 and SDA1005 for example are both replaced by the EA2010 whereas the GRA2004 is not. This is because unlike the DDA1995 and SDA1995 the GRA2004 is a 'deeming' act, rather than a discrimination act and therefore not repealed or amended by the EA2010. People who acquire a GRC through the legal process become the gender and sex of the amended birth certificate.
The EA2010 consolidates the SDA1995 and the GRA2004 within it. Therefore definitions of 'sex' are carried over from each in consolidation.
While the GRA does not provide a legal definition of 'sex', it makes clear that both 'gender' and 'sex' are amendable categories under the law.
Statute law treats both sex and gender identity as binary. In turn the EA2010 does not provide a legal definition of 'sex'.
The EA2010 accordingly accommodates 6 pathways of protection within its scope in a 3 by 2 framework.
Natal men and women are protected under 'sex' but not gender reassignment.
Natal men and women intending to undergo, or are undergoing gender reassignment are protected in their birth sex and under 'gender reassignment'.
Natal men and women who have undergone transition and have obtained a full GRC are protected under both 'acquired sex' and 'gender reassignment' depending accordingly on the nature of the discrimination.
These provisions are for 'all purposes' except where they are disapplied. For example, parenthood, gender affected sport.
This is what the law says as intended by parliament. There are those who disagree with the law. They are free to disagree with the law, but as the High Court has said, that does not mean they are very much not free to discriminate.
The Supreme Court have the role of discerning whether the lower courts are correct in their construction or whether parliament intended something else.
Claims that ''we all know what a woman is'' fail to address the legal point. That is that the Supreme Court must find fault with the construction of the lower court in order to dismiss it, and instead find in favour of the appellants.
