Thread by @tribunaltweets

Part 2 of morning session in Peggie vs NHS Fife, Dr Upton will continue here.
We expect to resume at 11:20 am.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1962410761470263472

Judge and Panel have returned.
NC - before I resume on case law, I am reminded that there is a possible route to lawfulness of SSS in the workplace under the EA, but nobody seems to be suggesting SSS are unlawful in the workplace.

NC - takes me to Elon Cain (?) the Rs cite, seemingly in support of the proposition that there is domestic recognition of intersex, how is this relevant as DU does not have a DSD, is it a rearguard action against the Rs witnesses who admitted to the importance of biological sex.

It should be within judicial knowledge, we don't need to spell those out or prove them. Any child over the age of 5 knows that you need a mummy and a daddy to make a baby. There are different kinds of bodies.
Rs citing case on trans prisoners in female prisons. Please turn to

para 83, page 212 of Rs auth bundle.
J & Panel reading.
NC - from the cases, the difficult the C faces, is that to exclude all transwomen, the policy requires all the relevant facts to be assessed and is unassailable. It is 'if x, then y'. It says IF some TW can be in

female prison, then of course they need a policy to do so. X here - a policy that cannot exclude all tw from female prisons should not have been accepted. And would not have been accepted after FWS. A woman's prison is a SSS. Which is only lawful to exclude men by SSS.

Once you recognise that a woman's prison is SSS, then in the light of FWS, all men should be excluded.
The obvious proposition that introducing men into a women's prison increases the risk of sexual assault on female prisoners.

The next case, is Croft v Royal Mail, which was about toilet facilities at work by a TiM, the CoA suggested that there might be a stage of transition to be entitled to use female facilities. It might be discrim if the TiM reached that stage to exclude him. Croft is a dead

letter on 2 basis; it was before the GRC and before the FWS judgement. You may decide that is just as well, it failed to grapple with the stage of transition at which a TiM should use the female facilities. The Court seemed to envision transition as a medical process, the

employer would need to inquire as to what surgery and hormone treatment that TiM had had. And its is truly unpalatable to see that women's rights and privacy are based on the medical condition of a TiM. That raises the spectacle of something the TRAs like to talk wildly about

called genital inspections. And also that a rule restricting men from women's SSS is not valid if it is not enforceable. This is ridiculous. Consider speed limits, the prohibition against theft etc.
Just because there are activists breaking such rules doesn't mean that most

people don't respect them and it is perfectly clear who needs to use which toilets.
Moving on - the Rs are saying that if schools have a responsibility to undertake the moral education of children then a good employer has the same responsibility. And NHS Fife has a

responsibility to educate SP by requiring her to change her clothes in front of one of her male colleagues. The good employer should educate her out of this bigotry. NHS Fife has undertaken a witch hunt against a nurse of 30 years unblemished service.

It has attempted to smear her as a bigot and transphobe, to drive a wedge between her and her lesbian daughter, it has smeared her witnesses, it has told lies, it has attracted censure from the IC and the EHRC. This behaviour is repugnant.

Next case - an attack on fundamental physics is a surprise departure even for them. They suggest that time runs forward and backward, the 1996 legislation could not impact the 1992 workplace regulations. The suggestion that unlike in the EA the 1992 regs speak of men and women

it actually means 'men' and 'women + men who feel like women'. Those terms have not been modified by a GRC. This is a much more radical suggestions in an earlier piece of legislation, sex doesn't mean certificated sex but self id. This interpretation would throw open the CR to

Pete. My hypothetical manly man. All he would have do is say 'I am a woman;.

Thank takes me to Copeland.
Breach of 1992 regs are subject to crim penalties, the defs of men and women need to be clear. The C agrees. The only clear definitions are biological sex, or possibly

certificated sex. The Rs leap from no definition in the 1992 Regs to that must mean 'lived gender'. And none of the Rs witnesses were able to distinguish well between Pete and a transwoman.
Finally, a reference to an ET in Croydon, the Tribunal is unlikely to be assisted by

by a first tier tribunal, in England. And I would say it is another example of the Rs substitution of ad hominem attacks for legal arguments by attacked a member of the Cs legal team.

I'm at the end of my authorities, it's early for lunch but I would be able to continue with the speaking note that I will provide.
J - what do you prefer
NC - a minor preference to break now.
J - we will break now, shorter lunch break, back at 12:30.
End of morning part 2.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.