@swilkenkc.bsky.social I'm trying to find the case you mentioned to me about costs as damages, and which opened a whole world of pain for you on this lovely kind site... and I can't find it. Could you possibly remind me?

The demo against the ruling of the Supreme Court in FWS v Scottish Ministers. The #BeKind people.

Jolyon Maugham KC has blocked me, but posted that the guardian article about Melanie Field shows UKSC in FWS v Scottish ministers is constitutionally wrong. For a KC to suggest something so legally illiterate in statutory interpretation is bizarre. My explanation why medium.com/@scott-wortl...

😀

What a lovely, joyfully defiant piece. www.thetimes.com/article/e112...

This reply to me is from someone whose account is not marked "intolerance". Go figure.

Human rights lawyers, please comment with particular reference to the article 3 and 8 rights of women subjected to such searches. x.com/kathmurray1/...

Stonewall used to insist that refusing to accept someone's "trans" identity — refusing to pretend to believe that they are the opposite sex from their real sex — was "transphobic". Stonewall's definition of "transphobia" has been written into countless workplace policies.

This is extraordinary

An important thread from Helen Joyce over on Twitter. The vigilante attack was vicious and rightly punished. But if the reporting is correct, one of the perpetrators may have been the victim of a serious sex crime, too. We shouldn't overlook that. x.com/HJoyceGender...

Russell Hoban's How Tom Beat Captain Najork and His Hired Sportsmen Day 1

A small sample of the publicly visible blocklists I am on. "TERFs (leaders) Do they even make a blender big enough?" caught my eye, somewhat at random. Such nice people here.

This beautifully skewers the sanctimonious who are flocking here from X. x.com/magpiemixtur...

Excellent news that this has reached a favourable (and public) settlement. It is extraordinary how slowly the Forstater memo is landing with employers. Almost as if there were activists spreading misinformation about its extent. www.crowdjustice.com/case/civilse...

Utterly absurd, and wrong, that this post is marked by @bsky.app as "intolerance". In reality it consists of links to serious legal analysis, from someone whose opinion you might agree or disagree with.

I would like to make it clear that I am not representing For Women Scotland in next week's Supreme Court hearing. I appear to be blocked by India on here @indiawilloughby.bsky.social and Twitter, otherwise I would have asked directly for this misinformation to be corrected.

I've done a quick round-up of pre-reading for anyone interested in following FWS v Scottish Ministers next week: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/23/f... I haven't been able to find any substantial commentary arguing that SG should win. Please link in reply if you know of any, and I'll add it.

"Will need the whole world to recognise and relate to her or to him in the reassigned gender; and will want to keep to an absolute minimum any unwanted disclosure..." Lady Hale demonstrates the carefully-fostered delusion under which so many senior judges have operated in these cases.

Unmissable. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMcR...

This gives me far too much credit. It was Maya Forstater who first persuaded me that there had to be a respectable argument that the GRA didn't stick its spanner into the works of the EqA; and @michaelpforan.bsky.social who did the detailed doctrinal work of putting that argument together.

This is fascinating to see. I used to be of the "just read the words of s.9(1)" persuasion, too. I thought the consequences were repulsive, but I couldn't see a way around them.

He gets more than his fair share of abuse, we disagree often, but this piece by @michaelpforan.bsky.social is the best lawyering that I have read this week, in any field. It is detailed, but changed my view on "What is a Woman" in law knowingius.org/p/uk-supreme...

I was horrified recently to learn that a situation very like a. hypothetical I put to a witness in Adams v ERCC - a male counsellor tricking a rape survivor into confiding in him by successfully "passing" as a woman - had actually happened. www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/15/s...

I wrote about peanut-free meals and single-sex spaces. www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/06/s...

One of the things that's interesting about this is that it is much more draconian than most social media policies should be. That's because "necessary... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" is one of the express justifications for interference with article 10.

I've posted about nice men on Substack. substack.com/home/post/p-...

I am inordinately proud of the Sex Matters intervention in FWS v Scottish Ministers. It's a model of calm, lucid, rational, orthodox legal reasoning leading inexorably to the only conclusion that makes sense. sex-matters.org/posts/update...

Wow

This post from Sex Matters is an extraordinarily good, clear account of the SM position (intervening) on the Higgs appeal. Very much appreciated if employment lawyers here would post the link. sex-matters.org/posts/update...

Fascinating topic, which the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is also looking at www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/new-pro...

x.com/legalfeminis... The Legal Feminist blog has published a guest post by Dr Claire Methven O'Brien. Important and timely - please share.

There's some truth in this: I'm not a victim. A lot of trolls have been shouting at me, but that's their stuff not mine.

And here's the proof. I didn't block the troll: the troll blocked me.

There's still the odd one of these, but the good news is that the rate has dropped off sharply. Bullies feed on fear, so if you're not scared of them you're no fun at all.

The Legal Feminists are coordinating a response to the Bar Standards Board's latest consultation. If you're a (female) feminist barrister and you'd like to help, lmk. www.telegraph.co.uk/business/202...

My current specialism keeps delivering career firsts. www.thetimes.com/uk/law/artic...

Gender identity belief has an extraordinary power to wreck institutions' ability to do their core jobs properly. www.theguardian.com/society/2024...

The Rape Crisis Scotland report on Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was published today. www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/...

So I've seen that a KC is getting a lot of abuse for being transphobic (there's no possible reason for saying that he is - I don't think he's ever expressed any public opinions on trans issues). So he must surely have been put on some kind of 'list o' TERFs' somewhere on this site?

"Both sides" they say. No. Only one side of this debate regularly posts material like this. Time to pick a side, chaps.

My account is labelled for "intolerance". This person's is not.

This (just to take a random example), is apparently not "intolerant" by the standards of the good people of @bsky.app

🧵Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: EAT upholds ET decision that a belief in English nationalism which included forcible deportation of Muslims was not protected. caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/eat/2024/141

For the avoidance of doubt: when I say I don't suppose I'll be here much longer, I mean I predict it's likely that the trolls will get me kicked right off quite soon. I don't mean that I'll leave because I'm so upset by the abuse, which I find ridiculous, but not upsetting.

This is typical. Though I always enjoy variations on "get in the sea", because I often do. I've even been known to organise an event called "TERFs get in the sea" where lots of us do. (Then we get out again, get dry and have breakfast, which is perhaps not exactly what is being proposed.)

Heavens. I suspect I won't be here much longer. But meanwhile, it would be nice (and collegiate) to see some support from a few more of the lawyers here. Especially those who don't share my views, tbh. Civil disagreement being kind of the job?