Legal Feminist has heard that when "justice.gov" email addresses are issued to new @HMCTSgovuk staff, there is a mandatory "pronouns" field which must be completed. They are told that if they don't give their pronouns, or an email address can't be created.
This is concerning. Including pronouns on your signature is a profession of faith in gender identity theory. It should not be forced on any staff - least of all court staff.
Aug 9 • 20 tweets • 2 min read
A comparator in a discrimination case is the "experimental control" in a thought experiment.
Want to know whether your torch isn't working because the battery's flat, or the bulb's defunct? Leave the battery in and try a new bulb - does that make it work? No?
Jul 5 • 9 tweets • 1 min read
Edward Lord recused from EAT case about dismissal of a gender-critical teacher. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
If Lord were to sit on this appeal, "the fair-minded and informed observer could not exclude the possibility of bias".
"... harassing your gender critical staff through the medium of your diversity training is taking things to another level. It has various snazzy features as compared to common-or-garden workplace harassment..."
Apr 10 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
The statement from @PoliceChiefs suggests that NPCC think a police officer refused permission to strip-search a suspect of the opposite sex might have a discrimination claim under the Equality Act. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
This is a bizarre idea. A discrimination claim requires a detriment, and an "unjustified sense of grievance" is not a detriment: Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC  ICR 337.
Mar 31 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
This is huge. An attempt to bring in legislation forcing therapists and others to take every assertion of a cross-sex identity at face value - risking untold harm to a whole generation of children - has failed. itv.com/news/2022-03-3…
Here is Naomi Cunningham's speech to the @LgtbqForum
from last year giving a short explanation of why the proposals were such a bad idea.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/11/17/con…
Mar 18 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
This picture vividly demonstrates why we have s.195 of the EqA - and why sporting bodies must use it, or destroy women's sports.
It also provides an illustration of how the law on indirect discrimination may sometimes make use of single sex exceptions compulsory, although on their face they are permissive.
Dec 20, 2021 • 68 tweets • 6 min read
One of us reading now. Don't expect analysis yet - just what seems important on a first read-through.
Central issue is the lawfulness of COP's policy of recording "non-crime hate incidents" (with name of alleged perpetrator) on the basis of the subjective impression of the alleged victim, irrespective of any evidence of the hate element.
Apr 28, 2021 • 7 tweets • 1 min read
There's quite a lot of concern being expressed about the EAT's decision to reserve judgment in #MayaAppeal this afternoon, but don't read much into that. 1/
This was a long hearing by EAT standards - appeals are usually dealt with in half a day or a day. 2/
Mar 12, 2021 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
It is being widely reported that the organisers of tomorrow’s vigil for Sarah Everard, Reclaim These Streets, have lost their legal challenge to a ‘police ban’ on the event, but this is not an accurate legal reflection of what happened at the hearing (1/6)
The Met had told the organisers that their “hands were tied” and that Covid regulations prohibit all protest. During the course of the hearing, the Met’s representative clarified that in fact, there is no blanket ban on protest (2/6)
We can disagree without despising each other. Would someone on the "other side" of the trans rights/ GC feminism debate be willing to enter into an amiable debate by email with barrister Naomi Cunningham? legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/10/13/id-…
It's understandable (though disappointing) if prominent legal figures think this is too high risk. But surely there's someone junior for whom the proposition is just win/win?
Nov 19, 2019 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Csl for R responds. Three more points to make. First is logical fallacy point. All gerbils are animals. Animals eat humans. Therefore gerbils eat humans. That is why her claim is fallacious.
Second on compelled speech - it is only compelled speech in the way that hate speech is compelled speech. We DO have restrictions on what people can say. Hate speech in the context of women, MVAW and pornography - contention that porn is hate speech and
Nov 19, 2019 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
We're back for resumed closing submissions. #MayaForstatersCase2019
Still with Csl for Claimant. C's evidence on how she would regard someone would not necessarily affect how she addressed them.
Looking at para 201 in Mackereth - clearly a conclusion on the facts in that case, clients with MH problems, dr in a customer facing role, and he would refuse to address them according to their preference. No evidence that C had any trans colleagues much less that
Nov 19, 2019 • 32 tweets • 5 min read
Submissions for Claimant.
Art 10 is relevant as well as Art 9, because much of what MF said was outside work, not at work. Background to GRA is relevant too. History to GRA now being set out.
When you read s.9 GRA in full, patently obvious that it must mean for all legal purposes, enacting ss.2, as it is about legal provisions. It cannot possibly mean more than that because the law cannot make the impossible possible.
Nov 19, 2019 • 27 tweets • 4 min read
I'm at the Employment Tribunal this morning to watch closing submissions for the #MayaForstaterCase2019. It's a particularly interesting case on whether a) gender critical beliefs and / or b) a belief in innate gender identity are protected philosophical beliefs.
Does there have to be a belief in innate gender identity in order for absence of belief to be protected? Possibly not, say the judge and counsel for the Respondent (employer)