Maya Forstater’s win is great news, but there’s still some way to go. Here is a thread of cases (mine and not mine) which still need funding…
There are three cases against the Green Party, with Shahra Ali’s up first, later this summer and then Emma Bateman’s. Dawn Furness’s case will be the last to be heard. The details of it are shocking (she alleges being assaulted twice). This is a big one:
James Esses’ claim is that he was expelled summarily from his university course, for holding gender-critical views. And he alleges a lot more besides. I’m doing this one, instructing Akua Reindorf KC:
Dr Laura Favaro was employed conduct academic research into the “gender wars”. She did so and wrote an article summarising her initial findings. Now she’s been dismissed, and her research has been frozen:
(I should add - these are in no particular order - and if there are cases that should be added to this list, please DM and I will add them)
Jo Phoenix is a renowned criminologist. She elicited the Reindorf Review, and the phrase “the law as it is, not as Stonewall would like it to be”. Her claim is against the OU. She’s got Ben Cooper and Annie Powell in her team, which is therefore A1:
We get judgment in Mermaids’ (Good Law Project) appeal against LGB Alliance next week. GLP have been explicit that if they lose, they will try to appeal. Are same-sex attracted people allowed their own charity?
These are some of the cases that are crowdfunded. There are more (@LevinsLaw - don’t you have one/some?). Many, many more are privately funded because people still can’t go public. Maya’s shifted the landscape, but there’s still some way to go.
@LevinsLaw Gillian Philip’s case is an example of how women in atypical/precarious employment are particularly vulnerable to discrimination because of their gender-critical belief - a recurring theme in these cases:
@SarahSurviving Rachel Meade is a social worker. Her claim is against her employer and her regulator, Social Work England. The implications of a discriminatory regulator are plainly very serious.
This one’s coming up soon. Shazia Khan instructing Naomi Cunningham.
And as with regulators, so with Trade Unions: institutions supposed to protect us from discrimination accused of perpetrating it.
@LevinsLaw acting for UCU members:
@LevinsLaw At Doyle Clayton, we’re also acting for Sibyl Ruth. This has the atypical/precarious employment facet of other cases, but also a combined age/sex indirect discrimination claim. Chris Milsom is acting. The facts of this one are remarkable:
@LevinsLaw As an aside - Free Speech Union are helping Sybil. They’ve also helped several of our other clients, many/most of whom are not public. I don’t come from the same political tradition as @SpeechUnion, but I can’t speak highly enough of their work. (1/2)
@SpeechUnion (2/2) If @SpeechUnion didn’t exist, someone would need to invent them. I’m very glad Toby Young did, and so are several current and former clients.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No explanation is offered why a person who “holds strong gender critical beliefs” is not suitable to perform Professor George’s role (and without an explanation of what gender critical beliefs are - which would demonstrate whether journos know what they are).
Because it doesn't appear that the journos know what gender critical beliefs are. Gender being “set at birth” is the opposite to a statement of gender critical belief. It doesn’t seem like the journos fully understand this area.
The assertion is being made that the Supreme Court judgment in FWS places the UK in breach of its ECHR obligations, as laid out in the case of Goodwin v UK. A court case is apparently being prepared on this basis.
I think this may be seriously misguided.
🧵
The assertions regarding Goodwin are varied, but are broadly that Goodwin is authority for the proposition that, in law, Trans Women Are Women / Trans Men are Men, that they must be treated as such at all times.
Goodwin is a case from 2002, so 23 years old and referring to events that happened in the 1990s and before. It resulted in the UK passing the Gender Recognition Act 2004. But that doesn’t mean that the GRA replicated the Goodwin requirements. What did Goodwin actually require?
Another of the false assertions made of the @ForWomenScot judgment is that the Supreme Court “refused to hear from trans people.”
It did no such thing.
🧵

The Court declined to hear from two trans individuals (in an application for which Maugham’s Good Law Project had crowdfunded £31,874 less the 10% from all GLP crowdfunding which is retained by GLP for its own expenses).
(h/t @wonkypolicywonk)
That application was very unlikely to succeed because the Supreme Court doesn’t tend to hear from individuals. I stand to be corrected, but I can’t think of any Supreme Court case in which an individual has been granted permission to intervene.
This 2024 paper by Ruth Birchall and @jophoenix1 demonstrates the anomalously high success rate of gender-critical claimants. There is no other category of Equality Act claims where this is the case.
Why are the cases so disproportionately vs public sector employers? Stonewall is/was embedded in private sector too but almost no private sector orgs litigate to trial. There are cases, but they settle - usually early.
Both were career civil servants with impeccable records, for whom the objective material reality of sex was relevant to their jobs. Both raised concerns sensibly, in accordance with civil service procedure and in a methodical, objective and evidenced way.
This is wrong. Although headed “The Law”, no actual law is cited. It is perfectly lawful (and in some circumstances a legal requirement) to “issue guidance to public bodies instructing them to always operate single sex spaces on the basis of sex registered at birth”.
“Single sex spaces” is not a phrase used in legislation, but it’s clear in meaning and describes what is legislated. As name suggests, it means a place with people of only one sex within it. Once there are people of two sexes within, it is no longer a single sex space.