Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Michael Foran Profile picture
@michaelpforan
Nov 4 • 11 tweets • 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
I’ve thought hard about saying this but I think at this point, it’s fair. Many people are ardently convinced that I know nothing about the law or that I’m a bigot because someone they trust - a barrister - is publicly and repeatedly telling them that I am. This has consequences.
Robin Moira White has behaved irresponsibly. She has accused me of spreading rhetoric that directly led to the death of a teenager and regularly comments that I’m ideologically blinded to such a degree that my analysis of the law should be dismissed.
To date, we have only had one extended debate on legal interpretation. I published this piece on two important cases on sex and gender in law:

scottishlegal.com/articles/micha…
Robin responded and began with a personal attack and an accusation that I am ideologically blinded and approach the law in a partisan manner:

scottishlegal.com/articles/robin…
I responded and tried to keep things focused on the substance of the law. I did not hurl any ad hominem attacks and I didn’t accuse Robin of being ideologically motivated when I pointed out what I thought were omissions and inaccuracies in her analysis.

scottishlegal.com/articles/micha…
Again and again Robin has insinuated that I’m a hack or a fraud. Rarely has this involved engagement on the substance of a dispute and when it has I think it’s easy to see how reasonable people might disagree on questions of law.
Thus far I’ve refrained from making any claim about Robin’s ideological motivation for any of this. I will say that some of the analysis she has provided is extremely questionable in my view.
These repeated attacks, coming from a barrister who is widely respected within a certain online community, I suspect has directly led to many people strongly believing that I am intentionally misrepresenting the law.
Some of these people then quite fairly assume that this is not something an academic should be doing. They become convinced that I should not be employed at a university and may even think I’m a danger to students. Some don’t believe it but make the accusations anyway of course.
I don’t think Robin has acted appropriately. I think this is irresponsible and unserious. This kind of behaviour is unbecoming of anyone who wants to put themself out as an expert that people can trust on a highly complex topic.
Having said that, to anyone reading this: please do not take this to the Bar Standards Board. I do not want a pile on of complaints. I would like Robin to stop personally attacking me and nothing more.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Michael Foran

Michael Foran Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelpforan

Michael Foran Profile picture
Nov 3
In my @unherd piece discussing the For Women Scotland decision this week that the courts judgment would leave few activists happy. That’s not what I’m seeing and I think that’s very interesting. Another 🧵on the judgement and some of the commentary surrounding it since.
I expected gender critical feminists to be unhappy with the decision that sex in the Equality Act is modified by a GRC and that GRC holders have a presumptive right to use single sex services aligned with their GRC. I expected Trans Rights Activists to be welcome this.
I expected GC Feminists to be happy that the court held that without a GRC people are classed as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act and has no presumptive right to use opposite sex services. I expected Trans Rights Activists to be vocally critical of this.
Read 24 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Nov 2
Its not transphobia to accurately describe the law. The court was clear in this case. There is no prima facie right to use opposite sex services without a GRC. Trans woman without GRCs are men in law and are subject to the same rules as non-trans men with regard to those services
There is a requirement to justify exclusion on the basis of either sex or gender reassignment. Without a GRC exclusion is on the basis of sex, exactly the same test to determine if it’s lawful to exclude men - however they identify - from a women only space.
Following this case gender reassignment discrimination applies where someone has a GRC stating they are the sex of the service in question. That makes things more complicated but without a GRC the court is clear that there is no prima facie right to use opposite sex services.
Read 8 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Nov 2
I can’t respond directly to Robin since we blocked each other after the whole accusing me of being personally responsible for the murder of a teenager thing. I’ll just say here that if this finding is obiter, it’s bc it’s already settled law that trans women without GRCs are men
Image
Image
The central legal question to be decided in this case is what the meaning of sex is in the Act. The court here held that sex is biological (or birth) sex unless modified by a GRC. This is building on the central holding (ratio decidendi) in FWS 1 and Green v SoS for Justice
In Green, the central Q was whether a male-to-female trans prisoner without a GRC could sue for gender reassignment discrimination bc of being treated equally with male prisoners or whether gender reassignment discrimination rules demand Green be treated equally with women.
Read 17 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Nov 1
Still working through the judgment from the FWS appeal but first thing to note is that in my view this confirms that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would change the operation of the Equality Act and so would modify the law as it applied to reserved matters.
If sex in the Equality Act is taken to mean biological sex unless modified by a GRC, then changing the process by which you can get a GRC modifies the operation of provisions relating to sex in the Equality Act.
An analogy here would be if there was U.K. legislation that gave welfare benefits or social care to people who meet certain criteria and Scotland introduced legislation changing the criteria for qualifying for these benefits. That would modify the operation of the benefit scheme.
Read 6 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Oct 24
Interesting development this week on whether parents can assess material relating to the teaching of relationship, sex, and health education (RSHE). A thread 🧵on the background leading to this:

gov.uk/government/pub…
Over the last few years, there has been a growing concern amongst some parents - particularly in the US - about sexually explicit or inappropriate material being made available to young children via their school libraries or classes. The most notorious example is this:
Image
Image
We don't know whether material such as this, or material perhaps less explicit but still potentially inappropriate is being used in schools in the UK because parents who have requested information about RSHE lessons have been denied access to the material used.
Read 17 tweets
Michael Foran Profile picture
Sep 12
This compete misstatement of the law is coming from an academic union. Not only do academics have the general rights to freedom of expression everyone has, including the right to offend, we have heightened protection as academics due to legal protection for academic freedom.
Just a few examples of courts reiterating that the ECHR protects the right not just to hold a belief but to manifest it - which cannot be curtailed merely because it’s offensive. This includes gender critical belief.
Image
Image
This misinformation that you’re free to believe X but you have no right to manifest that belief if it’s offensive to others is completely false. It’s been argued for by activist campaigning groups that want to silence people from lawfully expressing protected beliefs.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(