Sophie 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇪🇺

There is always a slim chance that the bill of rights 1689 could be argued that the state is enforcing a punishment which is "And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted." By generally agreed principles of modern humanity

Further information that should have been considered or evaluated if it met the criteria for admission to the case. Alongside, considering in past cases where "sex" has changed meaning in case law and if it should have rather been primary legislation to fix it.

I confess that I am not moved by the semantic question of "gender" or "sex". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will explain it later. I recognise the slightly different ways in which the words have come to be used. It seems to me that this is to do with the recognition of an acquired sex or an acquired gender. Unless the Government have a specific intention of using "gender" rather than "sex" throughout much of the Bill-and if they have, they have got into some confusion in Clause 9- it seems not to be a matter of great interest. Nor do I think that this is the moment-and here I agree with the Minister-for getting into questions of causation, whether physiological or psychological, because I think that they are now beside the point. They are indeed, as he said, matters that are still controversial within the medical profession-as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, made clear on Second Reading, and as many of us know from meeting a range of general surgeons and psychiatrists involved in these matters.

There is actually some pretty good points of discussion which should at minimum have been evaluated in FWS, but didn't occur for example the following -

The principle of legal recognition in the acquired gender is that a person's gender will, subsequent to the issue of a gender recognition certificate, become the acquired gender. That will ensure, on the whole, the continuing effect of gender-specific terms in legislative enactments. The Government have always intended that once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender. If the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex becomes that of a man, and, if it is the female gender, the person's sex becomes that of a woman. Where under any legislation it is necessary to decide the sex of a person who has an acquired gender, or to say whether that person is man or woman, or male or female, the question must be answered in accordance with the person's acquired gender.

The problem with this approach is lack of consideration where appropriate to use Hansard, as well there is clear information about the intent of the bill and parliament's understanding when voting about it for example - hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2004-0...

A big part of their case appears to be that the human rights of Trans people in this context are "unjustified" i.e. zero-sum game. And that the older laws (which have changed to make our modern laws) didn't include transgender people

This really the cracking of speeches: a banger.

Worth reading in full.

Equality commission’s guidance after sex ruling is fundamentally unworkable | Letter Letters: The EHRC has ignored warnings about the contradiction between possibly being sued for challenging someone’s gender versus being sued for failing to, says Rachel Taylor MP

For anyone that hasn't seen it here it is - www.theguardian.com/society/2025...

Just to expand slightly (I think) this is the initial version of the gender recognition bill. However, it may prove not to be the case. If anyone wants an easy comparison to what came to be the act - image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Po...

If only we did have that culture of rights. That would mean that unfortunately the correct treatment for people would be available. Unfortunately, the government doesn't appear to be transparent on the approach which it takes currently.

Our commitment to further developing a culture of rights in this country is exemplified by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Gender Recognition Bill continues the process of "bringing rights home". The Bill provides transsexual people with the opportunity to gain the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the gender in which they are now living. Transsexual people, at present, live in a state of limbo. Their birth gender determines their legal status, even though they may have lived fully in the opposite gender for many years. The absence of legal recognition is no mere technicality. For example, a person who is now living as a woman may take out motor insurance in her new name. That would seem the natural thing to do. If, however, she has an accident, she risks prosecution for driving without insurance and for fraud, as her legal status is still determined by her gender at birth. She is therefore faced with little choice but to take out insurance under her previous name, in the gender to which she no longer feels she belongs. She then has to explain, every time she has to produce her insurance documents, why there is a discrepancy between those documents and the reality of how she presents to the world. These are extremely personal matters. Yet transsexual people, because of the disjuncture between their birth gender and the gender in which they are now living, have to describe their gender history to complete strangers. The Gender Recognition Bill will ensure that this intensely private matter can remain private.

The part that seems to be purposely avoided by authorities is that during the debate on the gender recognition act 2004 - they said (shown in image below) - source: hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2003-1...

90. Nonetheless, the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom. Under Article 8 of the Convention in particular, where the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees, protection is given to the personal sphere of each individual, including the right to establish details of their identity as individual human beings (see, inter alia, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, judgment of 29 April 2002, § 62, and Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, judgment of 7 February 2002, § 53, both to be published in ECHR 2002-...). In the twenty first century the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security in the full sense enjoyed by others in society cannot be regarded as a matter of controversy requiring the lapse of time to cast clearer light on the issues involved. In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable. Domestic recognition of this evaluation may be found in the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group and the Court of Appeal's judgment of Bellinger v. Bellinger (see paragraphs 50, 52-53).

92. In the previous cases from the United Kingdom, this Court has since 1986 emphasised the importance of keeping the need for appropriate legal measures under review having regard to scientific and societal developments (see references at paragraph 73). Most recently in the Sheffield and Horsham case in 1998, it observed that the respondent State had not yet taken any steps to do so despite an increase in the social acceptance of the phenomenon of transsexualism and a growing recognition of the problems with which transsexuals are confronted (cited above, paragraph 60). Even though it found no violation in that case, the need to keep this area under review was expressly re-iterated. Since then, a report has been issued in April 2000 by the Interdepartmental Working Group which set out a survey of the current position of transsexuals in inter alia criminal law, family and employment matters and identified various options for reform. Nothing has effectively been done to further these proposals and in July 2001 the Court of Appeal noted that there were no plans to do so (see paragraphs 52-53). It may be observed that the only legislative reform of note, applying certain non-discrimination provisions to transsexuals, flowed from a decision of the European Court of Justice of 30 April 1996 which held that discrimination based on a change of gender was equivalent to discrimination on grounds of sex (see paragraphs 43-45 above).

Doesn't even ponder what the ECtHR has said about the issue in Goodwin v Untied Kingdom.

So they would ultimately have to refer it, in that case for primary legislation. Hence at worse I could see it having to be dealt with by primary legislation or an interpretation that doesn't have those negative effects (as purposed currently).

Even if they rework it. That doesn't prevent the effect of GRC on the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR. To enforce the guidelines as current that would require gathering data in such a way that it would create an intermediate zone. Hence would be violating the HRA. Therefore not possible.

Well that is of concern they'd have to completely rework domestic human rights case law and reinterpret the human rights act. To such an extent that they wouldn't be able to play it out as a consequence of the law they even partially reaffirmed it in FWS v Scottish Ministers.

This is of course already UK law by the human rights act 1998 and so the state has an obligation to fulfill these requirements, but currently may not be in line with convention rights.

90. Nonetheless, the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom. Under Article 8 of the Convention in particular, where the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees, protection is given to the personal sphere of each individual, including the right to establish details of their identity as individual human beings (see, inter alia, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, judgment of 29 April 2002, § 62, and Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, judgment of 7 February 2002, § 53, both to be published in ECHR 2002-...). In the twenty first century the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security in the full sense enjoyed by others in society cannot be regarded as a matter of controversy requiring the lapse of time to cast clearer light on the issues involved. In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable. Domestic recognition of this evaluation may be found in the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group and the Court of Appeal's judgment of Bellinger v. Bellinger (see paragraphs 50, 52-53).

92. In the previous cases from the United Kingdom, this Court has since 1986 emphasised the importance of keeping the need for appropriate legal measures under review having regard to scientific and societal developments (see references at paragraph 73). Most recently in the Sheffield and Horsham case in 1998, it observed that the respondent State had not yet taken any steps to do so despite an increase in the social acceptance of the phenomenon of transsexualism and a growing recognition of the problems with which transsexuals are confronted (cited above, paragraph 60). Even though it found no violation in that case, the need to keep this area under review was expressly re-iterated. Since then, a report has been issued in April 2000 by the Interdepartmental Working Group which set out a survey of the current position of transsexuals in inter alia criminal law, family and employment matters and identified various options for reform. Nothing has effectively been done to further these proposals and in July 2001 the Court of Appeal noted that there were no plans to do so (see paragraphs 52-53). It may be observed that the only legislative reform of note, applying certain non-discrimination provisions to transsexuals, flowed from a decision of the European Court of Justice of 30 April 1996 which held that discrimination based on a change of gender was equivalent to discrimination on grounds of sex (see paragraphs 43-45 above).

I am rather hopeful especially if there is highlighting of sections of Goodwin v United Kingdom. If there is due consideration it is likely that they'll either say that gender reassignment provisions of 2010 EA are wider than the guidelines or incompatibility.

Honestly, at this point the only option is regardless of legality to live the way that we need to live to our ideal state even if that isn't necessarily fully legal!!!

I hope that I am wrong, but it is a sign of us starting to import. The American approach that enables the shifting state of law towards rule by law rather than rule of law

The especially interesting aspect is that it proves in effect that the SC doesn't think in hierarchy of laws. If they did then they would have started with an assessment of how the EA 2010 would work in compliance with Goodwin. Does that make sense? If outcome "no" then declaration of incompatible

Might it be the case that they considered the witness statements as possibly being framed as the current view, but not at the time of the alleged offences. Therefore, presenting prosecution challenges due to the original mishap? Just a possibility of why CPS dropped the charges

We are still open to submissions for our upcoming special issue, “Feminist Responses to the Regression of Trans Rights: Strategies, Alliances, Hope.”

Please share this call for papers with anyone you think interested. The deadline for abstracts is Friday 31st October.

🏳️‍⚧️

Could there be a possibility of the GLP helping - maybe - might be worth considering contacting them and seeing if they have any interest in assisting with this. Hopefully, the circumstances arise that enable you to get the legal advice

Dear people of the U.K. (ostensibly England and Wales)

Until you realise this country is fucked because of 14 years of terrible mismanagement in every way by the Tories….

You will end up with Reform U.K. Ltd (Tories on crack) running this country.

And you think it’s bad now?!

UNTIL IT’S DONE, Ep. 4: Sylvia Rivera

In the 1970s, queer New Yorkers had been pushed to the margins of NYC. Our trans neighbors faced immense cruelty. But in Sylvia Rivera, they found a champion.

As we combat Trump’s politics of darkness, her legacy can light the path forward.

Despite the wrong conclusion being reached in the initial criminal case. As her transgender status wasn't a material part of the act, and it didn't pose a risk to either party

Depending on the judge they may use the logic. That since she knew her ASAB at birth and was engaging with an individual who looks male. Then she understood that she was engaging in a "SC homosexual" relationship. So informed consent was given on her side.

JCVI statement on COVID-19 vaccination in 2025 and spring 2026

It is due to them switching the cost effectiveness model as they use to have more leeway. Now that isn't the case and so they only deem it worth the money for a narrower selection of the population. You can read more about it here: www.gov.uk/government/p...

As part of that the court should have accommodated making the process to change the law easier if possible. Most likely this would have been by the HRA with article 14 due to no legal pathway of access to a service i.e. discrimination. Then parliament can fix it with the easier process in HRA.

Yeah, the problem was/is that in past cases there has been situations where it has been on a basis of being treated as ASAB. Due to exclusion of recognition in certain circumstances; this provided justification for the SC ruling - rather the law should have broke. Then fixed by parliament

Then they should be treated like that even if it means some laws where a biological basis exists for access to that law. They shouldn't have access and it is the job of parliament to fix it if it doesn't apply, but probably should.