Aida

Yeah, its lengthy introspection into application of FsWS is just hard to ignore.

With that fresh law and lengthy judgment, honestly appeal for either side is a given.

Surprising that she followed through with that

They are so out of touch they don't realize how much they are hated, and that this is highest order of endorsement to give.

Back in the days of my barely attended school I had an uneducated teacher try to teach computer science, so I quickly usurped teaching from her

One of the fake classes I then ran, and she never caught on to, was about NASA moon servers, live demo included.

I was the onion that came to reality.

Revealed: scale of rape cases resulting in no further action Revealed: Majority of rape allegations in England and Wales are closed due to lack of ‘evidence’ or ‘public interest’

"In the end, I feel more traumatised by the police than by the assault. Which is ridiculous. Everything they did, they did wrong.”

Appears I will be on BBC Scotland from 6:30 this evening, again commenting about the Peggie case, opposite Baroness Fawkner.

Multiple cases starting with forstater and through few months ago ruling on the exclusion from darts, and few other less loudly spoken cases

Well yes, if you actually care about the entire body of law there isn't, but UK judiciary repeatedly has shown that they are willing to pretend like Godwin and many following cases did not happen that created and refined out protections, relentlessly, over decades.

I guess with how things are you would look at harm of "removing transgender people to satisfy transphobes" and it's impact vs "transphobes being uncomfortable as trans people keep existing" and balance between those two outcomes, finding that transphobes can suck an egg.

There isn't, but competing rights are not supposed to be "balanced", at least not in the way transphobes call it.

The actual balancing is on the scale of wider population, not against one vulnerable group to another. That's the issue with GC being "protected belief" as it is anti-trans

Press aside, making vaccinations more widely available, not less, would kinda help, but that's not the gov we have

The total is 70,357!!

That’s 70,357 cis women who love us and want us to thrive!

Let’s get to 71,000!!

We’ve seen the indignities and legal threats that trans people are facing RIGHT NOW!

So…

Keep reposting.

Keep explaining why it is important for cis women to stand with their trans siblings.

Highlighted paragraph: Evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine 1038. We turn to address the evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine, which the parties had described as “research evidence”. That is not, so far as we are aware, a term of law. Nothing was cited to support the use of that term. It is not skilled evidence as explained below, and the parties did not suggest that either witness was skilled or expert in that sense. It was not necessarily inadmissible, given the terms of Rule 41, and until read and considered the extent to which it might be relevant could not be assessed, but the weight to attach to it was a different consideration

Highlighted sections: 1040. In many respects the evidence in the statements was more in the nature of material for the public debate on wider issues as to what the law should be, and on occasion it appeared to us to be polemic, rather than evidence relevant to the issues at an Employment Tribunal. 1041. Opinion evidence was addressed in Walker and Walker on Evidence, Fifth Edition (“Walker”), which explained the distinction between evidence of fact, and of belief or opinion. Opinion evidence may be led from what Walker describes as an ordinary witness (the classification of witnesses is between ordinary and skilled), and examples of that are given. Ms Forstater 1042. The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion. The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness statement. It was contradicted by other evidence, and the terms of a Note issued by EJ Tinnion on 5 January 2025 in relation to the second respondent. It did not appear to be an assertion related to the second respondent in particular, but as a more general proposition. 1043. The assertion at (d) had a further series of propositions which were opinions although presented as facts. If the 1992 Regulations, then as discussed they are not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the comment appears to be an argument over the policy of the law, or how the law should be interpreted, neither of which are relevant evidence before us. 1044. The sub-paragraphs include, by way of example, (ii) “women are in general more fearful of men than men …

Highlighted sections: That is again an expression of opinion without cross reference to any document in the Supplementary Bundle. Sub-paragraph (v) was “unless rules about single-sex spaces are clearly stated and enforced it leaves women open to risk of sexual harassment and assault, and makes these spaces feel unsafe.” That again is an expression of opinion. The witness statement purports to expand on the comments at paragraph 10 stating that the facts stated are true. In our view they are not reliable as evidence from a person not a skilled witness on the propositions that are advanced. 1045. Where there was reference to documentation it is in our view both partial and incomplete. Part of it is based on research undertaken by Sex Matters, an organisation of which she is the Chief Executive Officer. It is a campaigning organisation, as set out in paragraph 4. There is an obvious risk that that research is impacted by the nature of it, which is not suggested to be an independent academic study .... In our view it would not be dealing with a case fairly or justly to rely on expressions of opinion from a person campaigning on one side of the argument on such an issue. We did not consider that the case of Connor on which the claimant founded, cited above and which indicated that in some situations evidence which was not expert in nature could be sufficient, was applicable to such a matter. 1047. Our review of the literature referred to by Ms Forstater reveals that the broad generalisations she seeks to take from it are not sufficiently supported by the document or document founded on, both from the terms of the document and the other documents in relation to the same broad issue, to be treated as reliable evidence.

Remember when Helen Joyce was called out as "not an expert" by Australian courts - Now Maya Forstater has been told the same in the Peggie judgment! 👏👏👏

The judgement states outright that the evidence submitted by her & Sex Matters was “not skilled evidence.”

This is the Tribunal’s exact wording!

I still don't understand why were they allowed to opine at all, they had no standing in any way shape or form.

Sandie Peggie case 'shows trans segregation is unlawful', MSPs told THE Sandie Peggie tribunal ruling has shown that the “blanket exclusion of trans people” from single-sex facilities is generally unlawful ...

"A further 43 counts were thrown out, including all allegations against Upton, and the tribunal said that NHS Fife giving the doctor permission to use female changing spaces was not unlawful.:

www.thenational.scot/news/2568497...

We must #ChangeTheNarrative!

Dr Beth Upton was fully acquitted of all wrongdoing in yesterday’s Employment Tribunal decision. Yet she has been vilified by a toxic & poisonous media for months.
It must stop!

Congratulations, and solidarity, to you, Beth!

The part where the panel found an accountant not an expert witness in the matters of sex, biology and transgender people. Shocking.

Screenshot of a chat message from user "EmmyFr" posted at 12:26, responding to "MarieDeGournay." The message discusses apparent inconsistencies in a legal case involving someone named Upton. It lists three bullet points questioning how a judge and panel could simultaneously recognize Upton as male and biological male, accept Upton's sworn statement of being female, and declare Upton "truthful and convincing," noting these cannot logically hold together. The message continues with additional paragraphs criticizing how NHSF/DrU witnesses accepted one person's claim to be a biological female using she/her pronouns and were defensive of "Beth," while accepting Beth's version of an incident. It notes concerns about Beth's wellbeing but lack of consideration for "Sandie's" wellbeing, and concludes that the judge found these people credible despite never considering "SP's side of the story" or even the existence of SP's perspective. The text is displayed in white on a dark gray/blue background typical of messaging platforms.

mumsnet is royally melting down in lieu of the not-transphobic-enough case of hounded Dr Upton. They still feel "sad for peggie" who was bluntly harassing Dr Upton, and had no actual even pretense of the claimed "fear".

The WI and Girlguiding have been pressured to exclude trans women – yet the law is clear as mud | Jess O’Thomson Since the supreme court decision, organisations have faced lobbying and legal threats. But trans people are protected by discrimination law too, says Jess O’Thomson of the Good Law Project

"This is a moment that requires bravery in standing up for right. Organisations that value trans people should know not just that the law is on their side – but so, also, are many people who will step up to defend them if they have the courage to take a stand." www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Judge:
You weren't unfairly dismissed, you weren't treated poorly, you had no right to abuse your colleague (who did nothing wrong at any point), in fact you literally committed a hate crime by harassing her.

We're not very happy with some of the language your employer used to tell you.

Her: I WIN

Non law people often underestimate those, and yet they are a big part of many submissions for a reason, especially when you are working with very live legislation.

Mini thread on the ET decision in Peggie

Top line: It says exactly what we have been saying for months. The decision of the Supreme Court was not to turn the Equality Act 2010 into a nationwide bathroom ban - regardless of how anti-trans organisations have sought to misrepresent the law.

🧵👇

But I thought that Falkner was 100% correct on the law...

The real victim at the centre of this absurd case is very clearly Dr Beth Upton

To witness the way in which she’s been dehumanised and vilified by Peggie and their (Sex Matters) legal team, the tribunal judge, the British media, and UK politicians has been beyond horrifying

Solidarity Beth

Decision in the Sandie Peggie case.

She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...

That is some very picky criteria :P

'This is an issue for everyone' – cyclists urged to join solidarity rides with trans community after exclusion from Cycling UK list Three rides will take place in Bristol, Edinburgh and London on 14 December

'This is an issue for everyone' – cyclists urged to join solidarity rides with trans community after exclusion from Cycling UK list

Three rides will take place in Bristol, Edinburgh and London on 14 December 👏🏻💕🚲

www.cyclingweekly.com/news/this-is...

Says it all. Transphobia is a top-down establishment practice.

Defuse really, not defeat. They may well win in the court defending against it, but would also likely have to shutter the organisation in the 3 years it would take.