In para 202 where the Court says there’s no way for duty bearers to tell, did the Court not think of birth certificate? It’s not id but neither is a GRC. It’s just if they need to find a way without asking for a GRC then birth certificate is it.
November 17, 2025 at 5:52 PM
In para 202 where the Court says there’s no way for duty bearers to tell, did the Court not think of birth certificate? It’s not id but neither is a GRC. It’s just if they need to find a way without asking for a GRC then birth certificate is it.
This makes an interesting comparison with EHRC pre Faulkner. In AEA they could have done this, or relied on the fact it was so long since Statutory Code was published. But they welcomed the challenge and happy to defend it on merits … back when EHRC behaved as a conscientious and impartial regulator
November 17, 2025 at 11:37 AM
This makes an interesting comparison with EHRC pre Faulkner. In AEA they could have done this, or relied on the fact it was so long since Statutory Code was published. But they welcomed the challenge and happy to defend it on merits … back when EHRC behaved as a conscientious and impartial regulator
There’s an argument I think is powerful but I haven’t seen developed elsewhere. If trans people must live as birth sex to prevent GRC disclosure they cannot marry either. This is absurd however Goodwin is read. Basically if GRC privacy allows marriage it also allows trans people to go to the toilet.
November 17, 2025 at 8:41 AM
There’s an argument I think is powerful but I haven’t seen developed elsewhere. If trans people must live as birth sex to prevent GRC disclosure they cannot marry either. This is absurd however Goodwin is read. Basically if GRC privacy allows marriage it also allows trans people to go to the toilet.
Even more mind boggling is GRA. Clearly intended to allow trans person to live entirely as acquired gender (with new birth certificate and prosecution if someone else discloses GRC). But SC says it requires people to live as birth gender because you need to hide fact you have a GRC as it is private.
November 17, 2025 at 3:51 AM
Even more mind boggling is GRA. Clearly intended to allow trans person to live entirely as acquired gender (with new birth certificate and prosecution if someone else discloses GRC). But SC says it requires people to live as birth gender because you need to hide fact you have a GRC as it is private.
Absolutely tho motivated reasoning is a better term since it involves fallacious reasoning to get there and so is a cognitive bias. It’s also why GC are so often conspiracy theorists. They don’t just need to come up with ad hoc explanations (gametes) but also reasons to reject medical consensus etc.
November 16, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Absolutely tho motivated reasoning is a better term since it involves fallacious reasoning to get there and so is a cognitive bias. It’s also why GC are so often conspiracy theorists. They don’t just need to come up with ad hoc explanations (gametes) but also reasons to reject medical consensus etc.
This can be hubris (which doesn’t reflect well on them either). The fact there’s something such senior judges don’t understand and need help with offends their vanity. At no point did they consider looking in parliamentary record. Given this so thoroughly contradicts them, how will they react to it?
November 14, 2025 at 5:38 PM
This can be hubris (which doesn’t reflect well on them either). The fact there’s something such senior judges don’t understand and need help with offends their vanity. At no point did they consider looking in parliamentary record. Given this so thoroughly contradicts them, how will they react to it?
This contradicts SC as well. They maintained there was only one correct interpretation, not competing options with different governments making different choices. Their whole judgement depends on this since SC cannot choose the one *they* like. They have to leave it to the legislature to do that.
November 14, 2025 at 1:15 PM
This contradicts SC as well. They maintained there was only one correct interpretation, not competing options with different governments making different choices. Their whole judgement depends on this since SC cannot choose the one *they* like. They have to leave it to the legislature to do that.
Definitely preconceptions (how many judges read The Times do you think?). But their job is to rise above it & that they didn’t is absolutely a failure. See eg para 172
“can identify no good reason”. This shows ignorance but they could have asked, they could have looked at documents from the time etc
“can identify no good reason”. This shows ignorance but they could have asked, they could have looked at documents from the time etc
November 14, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Definitely preconceptions (how many judges read The Times do you think?). But their job is to rise above it & that they didn’t is absolutely a failure. See eg para 172
“can identify no good reason”. This shows ignorance but they could have asked, they could have looked at documents from the time etc
“can identify no good reason”. This shows ignorance but they could have asked, they could have looked at documents from the time etc
Fricker also raises moral culpability. While SC lacked understanding they have authority & resources to fix it. They chose interveners, the law clearly stated the contrary and they could have looked at contemporaneous evidence to fix misunderstanding. They didn’t and are morally culpable for that.
November 14, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Fricker also raises moral culpability. While SC lacked understanding they have authority & resources to fix it. They chose interveners, the law clearly stated the contrary and they could have looked at contemporaneous evidence to fix misunderstanding. They didn’t and are morally culpable for that.
So ignorance not prejudice? But these are related (see Fricker on Epistemic Injustice) & it’s hard not to see exclusion of trans people as testimonial injustice. SC ignorance cannot also be justified given so much evidence governments do indeed intend to treat trans people as their acquired gender.
November 14, 2025 at 11:03 AM
So ignorance not prejudice? But these are related (see Fricker on Epistemic Injustice) & it’s hard not to see exclusion of trans people as testimonial injustice. SC ignorance cannot also be justified given so much evidence governments do indeed intend to treat trans people as their acquired gender.
My view is that the SC judges simply couldn’t understand why a government would want to treat trans people as their acquired gender. Because of this they had to read the law in a way which did not however specious the reasoning to get there (while lower courts shied away from taking such liberties).
November 14, 2025 at 10:55 AM
My view is that the SC judges simply couldn’t understand why a government would want to treat trans people as their acquired gender. Because of this they had to read the law in a way which did not however specious the reasoning to get there (while lower courts shied away from taking such liberties).
But not questions about secrecy and bias around Cass Report and why it recommends a treatment not backed by a single study.
If BBC really is now prepared to ask hard questions they’d commission a new Barnes and Cohen producing reports from the critics of Cass and they’d have much more to draw on.
If BBC really is now prepared to ask hard questions they’d commission a new Barnes and Cohen producing reports from the critics of Cass and they’d have much more to draw on.
November 14, 2025 at 8:24 AM
But not questions about secrecy and bias around Cass Report and why it recommends a treatment not backed by a single study.
If BBC really is now prepared to ask hard questions they’d commission a new Barnes and Cohen producing reports from the critics of Cass and they’d have much more to draw on.
If BBC really is now prepared to ask hard questions they’d commission a new Barnes and Cohen producing reports from the critics of Cass and they’d have much more to draw on.
But the fact their reporting falls apart at the merest scrutiny, just as Prescott’s memo does passes him by. While assiduously avoiding asking hard questions of Barnes and Cohen he even claims:
“It has taken a lot of effort to reintroduce the habit of asking hard questions in sensitive areas.”
“It has taken a lot of effort to reintroduce the habit of asking hard questions in sensitive areas.”
November 14, 2025 at 4:55 AM
But the fact their reporting falls apart at the merest scrutiny, just as Prescott’s memo does passes him by. While assiduously avoiding asking hard questions of Barnes and Cohen he even claims:
“It has taken a lot of effort to reintroduce the habit of asking hard questions in sensitive areas.”
“It has taken a lot of effort to reintroduce the habit of asking hard questions in sensitive areas.”
It’s the lack of self awareness. The author can highlight the issues with Prescott relying on “History Reclaimed” for example but it does not occur to him to ask if Barnes and Cohen made exactly the same mistake in their reporting on adolescent trans healthcare.
November 14, 2025 at 4:52 AM
It’s the lack of self awareness. The author can highlight the issues with Prescott relying on “History Reclaimed” for example but it does not occur to him to ask if Barnes and Cohen made exactly the same mistake in their reporting on adolescent trans healthcare.
IIRC Jess (they’re so famous I think I can just use one name) suggested “non-binary people are non-binary”.
November 13, 2025 at 3:48 PM
IIRC Jess (they’re so famous I think I can just use one name) suggested “non-binary people are non-binary”.
There’s an (unserious) argument proving left wing bias at BBC. The BBC has responded in the same craven way as Starmer has in the face of pressure from the right. Assume it’s a left wing response to such pressure to self destruct and alienate then the BBC is left wing because it has done just that.
November 12, 2025 at 3:38 PM
There’s an (unserious) argument proving left wing bias at BBC. The BBC has responded in the same craven way as Starmer has in the face of pressure from the right. Assume it’s a left wing response to such pressure to self destruct and alienate then the BBC is left wing because it has done just that.
I think it’s worse than you might think. After the puberty blocker study was cleared another article was published on the BBC that stated questions remained and linked to an article in the BMJ. Who were the authors of this? That’ll be the BBC journalists as well.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-...
Questions remain over puberty-blockers, as review clears study - BBC News
But questions remain over the use of puberty blockers, say Newsnight's Deb Cohen and Hannah Barnes.
www.bbc.co.uk
November 11, 2025 at 4:27 PM
I think it’s worse than you might think. After the puberty blocker study was cleared another article was published on the BBC that stated questions remained and linked to an article in the BMJ. Who were the authors of this? That’ll be the BBC journalists as well.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-...
Finnegans Wake… 99.7%. Can we call that 100%?
November 11, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Finnegans Wake… 99.7%. Can we call that 100%?
Once again displaying the searing intellect and deep critical thinking she needed to be duped by anti trans pseudoscience. Because if you can spot obvious errors and fallacies in arguments then anti trans pseudoscience is not for you.
November 11, 2025 at 7:56 AM
Once again displaying the searing intellect and deep critical thinking she needed to be duped by anti trans pseudoscience. Because if you can spot obvious errors and fallacies in arguments then anti trans pseudoscience is not for you.
I’ve found the below an interesting story re Trevor Philips. Is he similarly unaware of the breadth of opposition to GC members of EHRC? If disavowing orgs that opposed hate crime laws protecting LGBT people is a requirement for the EHRC then why is it still not?
www.thepinknews.com/2009/05/21/t...
www.thepinknews.com/2009/05/21/t...
Trevor Phillips acknowledges ‘intense hurt’ caused by Evangelical appointment
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has acknowledged the anger felt by LGBT groups at the appointment of Evangelical leader and gay rights critic Joel Edwards to the...
www.thepinknews.com
November 9, 2025 at 2:09 PM
I’ve found the below an interesting story re Trevor Philips. Is he similarly unaware of the breadth of opposition to GC members of EHRC? If disavowing orgs that opposed hate crime laws protecting LGBT people is a requirement for the EHRC then why is it still not?
www.thepinknews.com/2009/05/21/t...
www.thepinknews.com/2009/05/21/t...
It’s always struck me gender critical covers this already. The belief that sex is immutable and important would seem to cover treating cis men and cis women differently. It just so happens the people who say this target trans people. However they obscured this so much that it covers basic sexism too
November 9, 2025 at 12:32 PM
It’s always struck me gender critical covers this already. The belief that sex is immutable and important would seem to cover treating cis men and cis women differently. It just so happens the people who say this target trans people. However they obscured this so much that it covers basic sexism too
The error the courts have made seems really quite obvious. Forstater held that only the most extreme beliefs (such as Nazism) were not worthy of respect. It is however wrong to conclude from this that beliefs that don’t meet that (very high) bar cannot possibly be bigoted. Bigotry isn’t just Nazism.
November 9, 2025 at 10:06 AM
The error the courts have made seems really quite obvious. Forstater held that only the most extreme beliefs (such as Nazism) were not worthy of respect. It is however wrong to conclude from this that beliefs that don’t meet that (very high) bar cannot possibly be bigoted. Bigotry isn’t just Nazism.
I believe this is a throwback to a time before photographs. Then passports had detailed descriptions of facial features so that you could identify the passport holder.
November 8, 2025 at 7:44 PM
I believe this is a throwback to a time before photographs. Then passports had detailed descriptions of facial features so that you could identify the passport holder.
One difference is there’s an acknowledgment (for now at least although I don’t think it’ll last) that this has “potential” disadvantage for trans people in the UK. So they point to prohibition against discrimination (disadvantage is illegal) to sidestep it. Here they simply pretend it’s not an issue
November 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM
One difference is there’s an acknowledgment (for now at least although I don’t think it’ll last) that this has “potential” disadvantage for trans people in the UK. So they point to prohibition against discrimination (disadvantage is illegal) to sidestep it. Here they simply pretend it’s not an issue