I'm very much looking forward to your piece on misinformation; we've now got an enormous task on our hands to hold organisations to account, unravel the deeply embedded ideological policies, etc.
We need to make sure we fully understand what we're asking for and get it right.
Clear and logical as ever. Thank you, and congratulations on being cited by the UK Supreme Court - not many academics achieve that, and particularly not so early in an career.
I have been in correspondence with an English women's organisation since last December about their wrongful admittance of trans-identifying men, and your writing has been invaluable in setting out my arguments. They should now have run out of road on denying the need to put things right, but I'm still taking notes from you just in case.
I appreciate you must be SO busy with interviews and you’re book of course (although no one’s as busy as Helen Joyce😂). I’ve been VERY much hoping you’d write something this week, so a big thank you for this piece. It’s like a big fry up after a late night out; the ‘late night out’ being the SC Judgement! I listened using the Substack AI voice option whilst pulling up nettles in my front garden. A most clarifying, sensible and human listen. Made me realise that no one was hurt by this judgement; despite the histrionics about. Thank you Michael. You are a calming presence and much appreciated after such an epic week. Back to reading the judgement.
Thank you, Michael, for being such a clear voice. The ridiculous demonstrations today and the incoherent writings of people who should know better make me quite concerned that this madness, which ought to be knocked on the head by this judgment, is only going to increase.
One thing: I read a comment by someone who claimed to be a lawyer specialising in education that it might be possible to take a case against a single sex school for gender reassignment discrimination if they don't accept a trans-identifying child of the opposite sex. It sounds like nonsense me but I wondered what your thoughts are.
Say it is a girls school and the child is a natal male. The admission policy is based on sex (permitted in the EA) and they cannot claim that they are being treated any differently to other male applicants. The child's identity as a 'trans girl' has no bearing according to the SC ruling.
If the child was a natal girl who identified as a boy they could claim gender reassignment discrimination if they were refused admission because of their 'trans' identity. The comparator would be a girl who did not claim to be a 'trans boy'.
I think I've understood that properly but I'm sure Michael will correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you are right, except that there is a further step: the school could then have a policy under paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act that excluded natal girls who identify as boys, provided that policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
I've since read that it won't be possible for, say, a boy to claim indirect discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment if a girls' school won't admit him as a 'trans girl'. Akua Reindorf has scotched that one in her excellent and very clear article on this judgment.
This is a readable, understandable summary for “non lawyers”, and, I see , lawyers alike. The most worrying misinformation since Wednesday’s judgement is coming from lawyers, particularly any K.C who might deem themself an expert. What feminists and all those policy and guidance writers and implementers who will have to argue this in real life need are clear explanations that follow the judgement correctly. Can I suggest another podcast with somebody who will have to rewrite policy or guidance or another lawyer who might take cases in the future.
Thank you so much Michael. Your clear explanations and unraveling of all the intricacies is very much appreciated. I look forward to your thoughts on all the chaos and misinformation that is swirling around now. I’m deeply concerned that the Labour government is cooking something up to dilute the Supreme Court’s decision.
Many congratulations on being cited. Well deserved.
question about single sex services. You discuss sport above so let's focus on that.
A service provider is entitled to provide single sex competition but is it required to do so?
Could offering only mixed sex competition be discriminatory because of the different impact on men and women of participating in mixed competition?
If single sex competition is provided (or has to be provided) what is the onus on the service provider to enforce their rules effectively?
Could the service provider decide to operate a 'blue league' and a 'pink league' and claim that both were mixed sex and that people are free to choose to compete in whichever they want?
I've been trying to find a similarly coherent explainer from the other side after being disappointed by some of the stuff in the Guardian, can you think of anything? All I can find is youtube videos that start with "until today I didn't even know this country had a supreme court, but go off i guess".
Hi Michael thank you so much for explaining all of this to none lawyers.. Sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere ( I think you have touched on it before but I'm still unclear on the details), but what I can't get over is para 26. Would it be possible to explain why/when it was already settled law that a tranwoman without a GRC remains a male under the act? If so presumably it was already settled law that they had no rights to single sex spaces? If so, how on earth has this not been mentioned more in the media coverage/ before this case and how was the Scottish government and other bodies still putting out guidance saying they could use women only facilities?
Brilliant as always - now we await the incorrect guidance from public sector orgs - your work is far from over
Thank you Michael.
I'm very much looking forward to your piece on misinformation; we've now got an enormous task on our hands to hold organisations to account, unravel the deeply embedded ideological policies, etc.
We need to make sure we fully understand what we're asking for and get it right.
Clear and logical as ever. Thank you, and congratulations on being cited by the UK Supreme Court - not many academics achieve that, and particularly not so early in an career.
I have been in correspondence with an English women's organisation since last December about their wrongful admittance of trans-identifying men, and your writing has been invaluable in setting out my arguments. They should now have run out of road on denying the need to put things right, but I'm still taking notes from you just in case.
Thank you Michael. An article on the misinformation that is rapidly circulating would be a very valuable resource and much appreciated.
I appreciate you must be SO busy with interviews and you’re book of course (although no one’s as busy as Helen Joyce😂). I’ve been VERY much hoping you’d write something this week, so a big thank you for this piece. It’s like a big fry up after a late night out; the ‘late night out’ being the SC Judgement! I listened using the Substack AI voice option whilst pulling up nettles in my front garden. A most clarifying, sensible and human listen. Made me realise that no one was hurt by this judgement; despite the histrionics about. Thank you Michael. You are a calming presence and much appreciated after such an epic week. Back to reading the judgement.
Thank you, Michael, for being such a clear voice. The ridiculous demonstrations today and the incoherent writings of people who should know better make me quite concerned that this madness, which ought to be knocked on the head by this judgment, is only going to increase.
One thing: I read a comment by someone who claimed to be a lawyer specialising in education that it might be possible to take a case against a single sex school for gender reassignment discrimination if they don't accept a trans-identifying child of the opposite sex. It sounds like nonsense me but I wondered what your thoughts are.
Isn't that explicitly addressed by the ruling?
Say it is a girls school and the child is a natal male. The admission policy is based on sex (permitted in the EA) and they cannot claim that they are being treated any differently to other male applicants. The child's identity as a 'trans girl' has no bearing according to the SC ruling.
If the child was a natal girl who identified as a boy they could claim gender reassignment discrimination if they were refused admission because of their 'trans' identity. The comparator would be a girl who did not claim to be a 'trans boy'.
I think I've understood that properly but I'm sure Michael will correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you are right, except that there is a further step: the school could then have a policy under paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act that excluded natal girls who identify as boys, provided that policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
I've since read that it won't be possible for, say, a boy to claim indirect discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment if a girls' school won't admit him as a 'trans girl'. Akua Reindorf has scotched that one in her excellent and very clear article on this judgment.
This is a readable, understandable summary for “non lawyers”, and, I see , lawyers alike. The most worrying misinformation since Wednesday’s judgement is coming from lawyers, particularly any K.C who might deem themself an expert. What feminists and all those policy and guidance writers and implementers who will have to argue this in real life need are clear explanations that follow the judgement correctly. Can I suggest another podcast with somebody who will have to rewrite policy or guidance or another lawyer who might take cases in the future.
Thank you Michael, your work is invaluable.
Thank you from a non lawyer. I gave subscribed
Thank you so much Michael. Your clear explanations and unraveling of all the intricacies is very much appreciated. I look forward to your thoughts on all the chaos and misinformation that is swirling around now. I’m deeply concerned that the Labour government is cooking something up to dilute the Supreme Court’s decision.
Many congratulations on being cited. Well deserved.
question about single sex services. You discuss sport above so let's focus on that.
A service provider is entitled to provide single sex competition but is it required to do so?
Could offering only mixed sex competition be discriminatory because of the different impact on men and women of participating in mixed competition?
If single sex competition is provided (or has to be provided) what is the onus on the service provider to enforce their rules effectively?
Could the service provider decide to operate a 'blue league' and a 'pink league' and claim that both were mixed sex and that people are free to choose to compete in whichever they want?
Thanks as ever, Michael, and many congratulations for being cited in the ruling!
Thank you for your tireless efforts to bring light and logic😀
Thank you as always for your focused legal analysis. Much appreciated as this must take a lot of time and effort.
Thank you Michael..
I've been trying to find a similarly coherent explainer from the other side after being disappointed by some of the stuff in the Guardian, can you think of anything? All I can find is youtube videos that start with "until today I didn't even know this country had a supreme court, but go off i guess".
Hi Michael thank you so much for explaining all of this to none lawyers.. Sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere ( I think you have touched on it before but I'm still unclear on the details), but what I can't get over is para 26. Would it be possible to explain why/when it was already settled law that a tranwoman without a GRC remains a male under the act? If so presumably it was already settled law that they had no rights to single sex spaces? If so, how on earth has this not been mentioned more in the media coverage/ before this case and how was the Scottish government and other bodies still putting out guidance saying they could use women only facilities?
Thanks for this great analysis, Michael.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/my-bonnie-lies-over-the-ocean
Dusty