On the other hand: Bell v Tavistock starts with a good reality based definition of gender dysphoria.
Judge Julian Knowles in Harry Miller v College of Policing says he doesn't intend to diminish people's experience but he is going to use the language 'man' and 'woman' to refer to biological sex
Judges take leave of reality because the Equal Treatment Benchbook and associated training tells them to.
They say "whats the harm"?
The harm is we you don't start with a commitment to the truth then how can justice be served?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Prof Whittle appears to be arguing individuals shouldn't be able to held liable for sexual harassment if their inappropriate behaviour was sanctioned by their employer.
I gave evidence in the Sandie Peggie case because the hospital board & male Dr refused to accept as findings of fact that that men are more likely to commit violent & sexual crimes, that men are more dangerous to women, so women are more heavily impacted by men in their spaces than vice versa.
You can read my witness statement here.
These are the facts it attests to.
You don't need a degree of any sort to understand these facts.