What is a woman?

[spen666]

I'll take it from this response that the data was something of a wake up call. .

Take/ Makeup whatever you want. ...


You seem unable to comprehend I have not expressed a view on the merits of your views on trans women.

You keep going on about things in response to me that I have not & do not intend to express a view on.

I am merely stating what the constitutional position is regarding the Supreme Court.

 

[spen666]

You are lacking. You come here without expressing an opinion, but tend to diminish the opinions of others. Your M.O is to launch attacks on people, without having anything to say.

You don't have a real argument, in effect you are just that kid who tries to control others, bullying when they can but resorts to saying, ''my Dad is bigger than your Dad'' when they get pushback. You deserve ridicule.

There are ''difficulties'' as N expresses it with the SC judgement. It contains what N expresses as an ''overstep''. If you chose to engage with her in a meaningful way - she is a human rights lawyer - then a more positive discussion might take place. Why not try it?

You are making things up to imputed to me.

I couldn't care a less about your stance on the trans debate. You hold your views and that's fine by me.

Others may disagree eith your Trans views and that again is fine by me.

I am not supporting or belittling anyones views on the trans debate.

I am however taking you yo task on your mistake or misguided legal views as to the judgement of the Supreme Court and its status .

 

[spen666]

.....

There are ''difficulties'' as N expresses it with the SC judgement. It contains what N expresses as an ''overstep''. If you chose to engage with her in a meaningful way - she is a human rights lawyer - then a more positive discussion might take place. Why not try it?

The mysterious "N" who posts using someone else identity may or nay not be a Human Rights Lawyer, but all their points were before the Supreme Court who are the most senior court in the land and who came to a different view.

The judgement of the Supreme Court is the law, not the opinion of anyone else in the country.


Its a pretty weak argument to post something & then quote your own post as proof of your pisition or trying to use your own post ad support of your position

 

[monkers]

Take/ Makeup whatever you want. ...


You seem unable to comprehend I have not expressed a view on the merits of your views on trans women.

You keep going on about things in response to me that I have not & do not intend to express a view on.

I am merely stating what the constitutional position is regarding the Supreme Court.

It's not that I am unable to comprehend it. What I am seeing is this man posting on a forum, on the one hand not expressing a view, and seeming to object to others having a view. That's what a forum is - the exact purpose - a place to express an opinion, and an expectation for that opinion to be challenged, only with facts and not falsehoods.

Instead of challenging a view, you attack the person saying it with your dismissive ways. You claimed that the highly and experienced judges, which was never refuted, carried out a forensic analysis and made a decision. Even that is not refuted.

What is refuted is that Judges are failsafe. They are not - and the data proves it.

The legal interpretation that the SC has arrived at, and despite their warning, is that the Commission and the government are overreaching.

You can tell the forums that I'm uneducated nincompoop while setting yourself up as a superior intellect as much as you like, but people will notice you.

Dr Victoria McCloud is a highly respected former High Court judge, a former Master of the administrative court, and a Doctor of Psychology, altogether superior in knowledge and experience to either of us, and her arguments are compelling. I linked you to her profile to make the point.

Ian Dunt has written a piece too, which sets out the case rather well. You can read it here ...

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

... or is he another one you can add to your list of know nothing dunces?

 

[monkers]

You are making things up to imputed to me.

I couldn't care a less about your stance on the trans debate. You hold your views and that's fine by me.

Others may disagree eith your Trans views and that again is fine by me.

I am not supporting or belittling anyones views on the trans debate.

I am however taking you yo task on your mistake or misguided legal views as to the judgement of the Supreme Court and its status .

Yes you are. You are saying my opinion is worthless because the infallible judges are always correct. They are not.

You are doing exactly what you claim you are not. My opinion is not fine by you, you are attempting to belittle me. It's not working.

 

[monkers]

The mysterious "N" who posts using someone else identity may or nay not be a Human Rights Lawyer, but all their points were before the Supreme Court who are the most senior court in the land and who came to a different view.

The judgement of the Supreme Court is the law, not the opinion of anyone else in the country.


Its a pretty weak argument to post something & then quote your own post as proof of your pisition or trying to use your own post ad support of your position

I could say the ''mysterious spen666'' is using a secret identity. However I recognise the stupidity of that argument. The site owner actually urges us not to use real identities. If you disagree with what N writes, she is open to a discussion with you.

On the one hand you try to dismiss her, yet you are reluctant to discuss things with her. So this is just a repeat isn't it; it's you trying tactically trying to undermine the credibility of another person on the forum.

N has a valid reason for not disclosing her identity. It is an open secret here, she is a trans woman, she is a lawyer, she faced an attack on her house and car due to transphobia. She has been effectively driven to live and work abroad to escape a hostile environment. She is temporarily in the UK for reasons again known to the forum.

There is some previous suggestion from you that you have legal training, why won't you engage?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The judgement of the Supreme Court is the law, not the opinion of anyone else in the country

Victoria McCloud believes that the SC have it wrong again, and is taking it back to the ECtHR.

So if there is a case, will the ECHR rule that the SC has interpreted the law wrongly? Or will it rule that UK law as interpreted by the SC is at odds with human rights and must be amended?

 

[CXRAndy]

Monkers you're trying far too hard.

The matter is settled

 

[icowden]

So if there is a case, will the ECHR rule that the SC has interpreted the law wrongly? Or will it rule that UK law as interpreted by the SC is at odds with human rights and must be amended?

I would guess the latter.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I would guess the latter.

If that's the case it seems futile to argue that SC got it wrong.

 

[spen666]

So if there is a case, will the ECHR rule that the SC has interpreted the law wrongly? Or will it rule that UK law as interpreted by the SC is at odds with human rights and must be amended?

The position is there is currently no case before the ECHR and the Supreme Court judgement is the law in the UK

 

[spen666]

It's not that I am unable to comprehend it. What I am seeing is this man posting on a forum, on the one hand not expressing a view, and seeming to object to others having a view. That's what a forum is - the exact purpose - a place to express an opinion, and an expectation for that opinion to be challenged, only with facts and not falsehoods.

Instead of challenging a view, you attack the person saying it with your dismissive ways. You claimed that the highly and experienced judges, which was never refuted, carried out a forensic analysis and made a decision. Even that is not refuted.

What is refuted is that Judges are failsafe. They are not - and the data proves it.

The legal interpretation that the SC has arrived at, and despite their warning, is that the Commission and the government are overreaching.

You can tell the forums that I'm uneducated nincompoop while setting yourself up as a superior intellect as much as you like, but people will notice you.

Dr Victoria McCloud is a highly respected former High Court judge, a former Master of the administrative court, and a Doctor of Psychology, altogether superior in knowledge and experience to either of us, and her arguments are compelling. I linked you to her profile to make the point.

Ian Dunt has written a piece too, which sets out the case rather well. You can read it here ...

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

... or is he another one you can add to your list of know nothing dunces?

Once again you are inventing views and imputing them to me

.
Even when I make it clear in express terms that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your views onvthe trans topic


My only interest is in the constitutional position of the Supreme Court.

That has nothing to do with what I think of the merits of their judgement in this or any other case.


The Supreme Court in the UK judgement is the law whether you agree with it or not

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The postponed is there is currently no case before the ECHR and the Supreme Court judgement is the law in the UK

Which wasn't my question.

 

[spen666]

I could say the ''mysterious spen666'' is using a secret identity. However I recognise the stupidity of that argument. The site owner actually urges us not to use real identities. If you disagree with what N writes, she is open to a discussion with you.

On the one hand you try to dismiss her, yet you are reluctant to discuss things with her. So this is just a repeat isn't it; it's you trying tactically trying to undermine the credibility of another person on the forum.

N has a valid reason for not disclosing her identity. It is an open secret here, she is a trans woman, she is a lawyer, she faced an attack on her house and car due to transphobia. She has been effectively driven to live and work abroad to escape a hostile environment. She is temporarily in the UK for reasons again known to the forum.

There is some previous suggestion from you that you have legal training, why won't you engage?

I don't need to discuss it with someone posting under a different person's identity.

I am not discussing the merits or otherwise of the Supreme Court's judgement.

I am discussing the constitutional position of a judgement of the Supreme Court.

Sadly, you do not appear to appreciate that the constitutional position of a Supreme Vourt judgement is not affected by whether you like or agree with the judgement.

 

[monkers]

So if there is a case, will the ECHR rule that the SC has interpreted the law wrongly? Or will it rule that UK law as interpreted by the SC is at odds with human rights and must be amended?

Thanks Bob, and I appreciate your respectful tone.

N could answer this rather better than I so I'll ask her to address rather better than I. Most of what I know comes from her to be honest.

She's away in Cardiff or thereabouts for the weekend returning Monday.

It will depend on the issue or issues that VM asks the court to test. As I understand it, in the usual practice, an individual can only apply to the ECtHR if they have experienced discrimination for which the person gained effective remedy at each step through the lower courts, all the way to the Supreme Court.

That is not the case for VM, and can not be since the decision was only announced on the 16th. This means that she must have something else in mind. N did briefly explain this to me along the lines that the Supreme Court itself must have violated her rights in the course of their considerations. VM and one other applied to the SC to be the voices that represent trans people in this procedure which is tantamount to a rebalancing of competing rights. She and the other applicant were denied. No other voices from trans people are groups were permitted either. On the one hand their was For Women Scotland, Sex Matters, and two other groups presenting legal arguments to have the effect of diminishing trans rights, and no voices to the contrary, save for a written statement from Amnesty International.

Again as I understand it, this means that VM can take a challenge to the SC on grounds of violation to Article 6 fundamental rights - the right to a free trial. Whether other issues can be bolted to this, I don't know, but N will.

And again as I understand it, the ECtHR will not demand another hearing, but they might well decide to send a letter to the government to remind them of their earlier directive that followed the Goodwin case, or may in fact issue a fresh directive imposing fresh conditions from other relevant cases.

If I'm wrong, N will no doubt straighten me out (and let you know about it - I have no certificate of exemption ).