1. A fundamental problem with the decision of the SCt in FWS:
The Court said it was a matter of statutory interpretation but they don’t appear to properly assess the entirety of the statute, the EqAct.
EqAct s11 says man/male, woman/female. …
The Court said it was a matter of statutory interpretation but they don’t appear to properly assess the entirety of the statute, the EqAct.
EqAct s11 says man/male, woman/female. …
2. But If s11 was to be taken to only mean sex as gonads, genitals & chromosomes, the Ct ignored entirely the decision of the ECtHr in Goodwin v UK, by failing to address the Human Rights of TP with a gender recognition certificate …
3. The Court appears to have dismissed those rights as laid down in Goodwin & has determined sex was as held by Ormrod LJ in Corbett v Corbett (1971)
Other than regressing the law 55yrs, the Court did not consider why the EqAct schedule 3 exists. …
Other than regressing the law 55yrs, the Court did not consider why the EqAct schedule 3 exists. …
4. The relevant part of Sch3 are those providing S/S Sex services with a defence if a claim for excluding a TP is brought.
But if a TP is always of the sex as per Corbett, not as their grc says, then sch. 3 would have been unnecessary.
But sch. 3 does exist!
But if a TP is always of the sex as per Corbett, not as their grc says, then sch. 3 would have been unnecessary.
But sch. 3 does exist!
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
