The Good Law Project has published the grounds of appeal lodged on behalf of some of the claimants in the failed judicial review of the EHRC Interim Update on the legal implications of the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers.
Thank you, Michael - much appreciate the clarity… One thing I don’t quite understand - shouldn’t the comparator be ‘a female who has not undergone, is not undergoing and has no intention of undergoing gender reassignment’? (ie. ‘the process’) ‘Identifying as’ or ‘living as’ the opposite gender are characteristics commonly attributed to someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but they’re not the definition of the characteristic itself (within the EA).
I guess this is relevant because ‘identifying as’ or ‘living as’ could be thought to imply there’s a point at which someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment might become the opposite sex for the purposes of the EA, thus voiding them from being their own sex in regard to sex equality law. A male who intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment remains always a biological male for the purposes of the EA (‘transwomen’ as an adjective of the male sex). ‘Identifying as’ or ‘living as’ the opposite gender is not a stipulated valid criteria for separate treatment from your own sex within the EA.
Thanks for a great demolition of ground 1, Michael. Why on earth are people still funding these clowns!!!
Look forward to your next piece.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-last-waltz
Dusty
Thanks for taking the time to break this down. Very helpful, as always.
Thank you, Michael - much appreciate the clarity… One thing I don’t quite understand - shouldn’t the comparator be ‘a female who has not undergone, is not undergoing and has no intention of undergoing gender reassignment’? (ie. ‘the process’) ‘Identifying as’ or ‘living as’ the opposite gender are characteristics commonly attributed to someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but they’re not the definition of the characteristic itself (within the EA).
I guess this is relevant because ‘identifying as’ or ‘living as’ could be thought to imply there’s a point at which someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment might become the opposite sex for the purposes of the EA, thus voiding them from being their own sex in regard to sex equality law. A male who intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment remains always a biological male for the purposes of the EA (‘transwomen’ as an adjective of the male sex). ‘Identifying as’ or ‘living as’ the opposite gender is not a stipulated valid criteria for separate treatment from your own sex within the EA.
Could you explain why you are referring to the judge as Swift J? I’ve never seen this before (not a lawyer!)
'Swift J' is an abbreviation for 'Mr Justice Swift', a High Court judge.
https://libguides.swansea.ac.uk/Oscola/JudgesNames
Thank you! It just reads very oddly to an ordinary person (me!) when J. Swift seems more straightforward.
I appreciate the link