Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of ‘woman

[Social Media]

 

In a landmark legal battle that could reshape the rights of transgender individuals in the UK, Victoria McCloud, the country's first transgender judge, is seeking to intervene in a pivotal supreme court case concerning the definition of "woman". McCloud's application to join the litigation, brought forth by For Women Scotland, underscores the far-reaching implications of the case and the pressing need for transgender voices to be heard in judicial proceedings.

 

At the heart of the matter lies the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which has been contested by For Women Scotland on the grounds of its inclusion of transgender women. The group challenges whether transgender women should be considered under the legal definition of "woman" in the legislation aimed at promoting gender balance on public boards.

 

McCloud, who transitioned in the late 1990s and subsequently obtained legal recognition of her gender under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, aims to intervene in the case to safeguard the rights and recognition of transgender individuals like herself. Concerned about the potential ramifications of a successful appeal, which could impact transgender rights across the UK, McCloud seeks to advocate for the preservation of legal protections for transgender women.

 

The implications of the case extend beyond the courtroom, affecting the daily lives and rights of transgender individuals in various spheres, including equal pay, access to services, and inclusion in public spaces. McCloud's decision to intervene underscores the urgency of ensuring that transgender voices are represented in legal proceedings that directly impact their lives.

 

The case has garnered significant attention and support, with author and campaigner JK Rowling among those contributing to For Women Scotland's crowdfunding efforts. Describing the case as "truly historic," Rowling's contribution reflects the broader significance of the legal battle in shaping the rights and recognition of transgender individuals in society.

 

As the legal proceedings unfold, the inclusion of transgender perspectives becomes paramount in ensuring a fair and just outcome. McCloud's application to intervene represents a crucial step towards advancing transgender rights and fostering inclusivity within the legal system, paving the way for a more equitable and representative judiciary.

 

29.03.24

Source

 

[thaibeachlovers]

In what alternate universe would it be appropriate for an obviously biased judge to be part of that debate?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

At the heart of the matter lies the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which has been contested by For Women Scotland on the grounds of its inclusion of transgender women. The group challenges whether transgender women should be considered under the legal definition of "woman" in the legislation aimed at promoting gender balance on public boards.

IMO there is nothing to consider.

If a person is born with male chromosomes they are of the male gender, and visa versa.

The question of whether they can live like the opposite gender is a different matter and so far that is accepted by most, in western countries. I doubt they'd try it in Afghanistan though.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

McCloud's application to intervene represents a crucial step towards advancing transgender rights and fostering inclusivity within the legal system, paving the way for a more equitable and representative judiciary.

I'm puzzled about the "rights" that refers to. If a gender has "rights" what "rights" do I as a male person have that are different from the "rights" of a female person? Are not the "rights" of humans applicable to both genders? Strange then that I lived so many years and never realised I had any "rights" at all, other than the "right" to pay taxes and be discriminated against in a divorce.

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In what alternate universe would it be appropriate for an obviously biased judge to be part of that debate?

By filing an ‘amicus curiae brief’ with the court.

 

Completely consistent with over 800 years of common law jurisprudence.

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm puzzled about the "rights" that refers to. If a gender has "rights" what "rights" do I as a male person have that are different from the "rights" of a female person? Are not the "rights" of humans applicable to both genders? Strange then that I lived so many years and never realised I had any "rights" at all, other than the "right" to pay taxes and be discriminated against in a divorce.

I’ll explain it simply to see if you can understand.

 

A man has the same rights as a woman, for example the same rights to address a court of law. 

 

Refer your first post above.
 

Denying someone that right because they are transgender would be an example of denying transgender rights. 
 

 

[JonnyF]

JK Rowling is such a legend, standing up for real women's rights.

 

Scotland on the other hand has become a parody. Their latest nonsense is "The Hate Monster" creation by Police Scotland. Truly embarrassing. 😄

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24201997.police-stereotyping-young-working-class-men-hate-crime-campaign/

 

What happened to impartiality? Having this judge involved in a case on trans issues would be like having a Democrat judge involved in prosecuting Trump. Oh, wait a minute...

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

JK Rowling is such a legend, standing up for real women's rights.

 

Scotland on the other hand has become a parody. Their latest nonsense is "The Hate Monster" creation by Police Scotland. Truly embarrassing. 😄

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24201997.police-stereotyping-young-working-class-men-hate-crime-campaign/

 

What happened to impartiality? Having this judge involved in a case on trans issues would be like having a Democrat judge involved in prosecuting Trump. Oh, wait a minute...

 

How is any of that remotely relevant to topic under discussion?

Read up on amicus curiae.

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

 

50 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How is any of that remotely relevant to topic under discussion?

 

 

Well JK Rowling was mentioned in the OP and I was offering my opinion on her as a legend for women's rights in a thread about the definition of a woman. 

 

Secondly, the whole thread is about the judge intervening and I was offering my opinion on his intervention. 

 

So on the whole, pretty relevant I'd say. 😄

 

 

Edited March 29 by JonnyF

[James105]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

The group challenges whether transgender women should be considered under the legal definition of "woman" in the legislation aimed at promoting gender balance on public boards.

 

So if they win then they could reduce the number of legacy women and replace them with "modern women" for "balance"?  This feels like a potential win for the Patriarchy. 

[impulse]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In what alternate universe would it be appropriate for an obviously biased judge to be part of that debate?

 

I've got no objections to her supporting any cause in her capacity as a private citizen. 

 

As long as she recuses herself from any cases that come before her that may be affected by that bias.

 

Edited March 29 by impulse

[riclag]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In what alternate universe would it be appropriate for an obviously biased judge to be part of that debate?

The left so busy to change the being 

of “ to be” .

 

That judge isnt a expert and should be no where near the decision making!

 

 

imop

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

 

So if they win then they could reduce the number of legacy women and replace them with "modern women" for "balance"?  This feels like a potential win for the Patriarchy. 

 

The trans movement has been an absolute disaster for women's rights, it's put the movement back decades.

 

It's ironic how the Wokeists support the right of men to trample on women's rights, ruin women's sport etc. by simply donning a dress and some lipstick. Reminds me of how they support the intolerance shown by certain minority groups in the name of diversity.

 

Dylan Mulvaney for example, mocks women with his grotesque parody of womanhood, and they love him for it. 😄

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The trans movement has been an absolute disaster for women's rights, it's put the movement back decades.

 

It's ironic how the Wokeists support the right of men to trample on women's rights, ruin women's sport etc. by simply donning a dress and some lipstick. Reminds me of how they support the intolerance shown by certain minority groups in the name of diversity.

 

Dylan Mulvaney for example, mocks women with his grotesque parody of womanhood, and they love him for it. 😄

Dylan Mulvaney might not be your cup of tea, but then taking a Freudian view, your overt expression of disgust together with your posting history of anti transgender ranting might suggest otherwise.

 

 

[nauseus]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:35 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

By filing an ‘amicus curiae brief’ with the court.

 

Completely consistent with over 800 years of common law jurisprudence.

 

That can be the way in but that may still not be appropriate for this case. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

That can be the way in but that may still not be appropriate for this case. 

Because the bigoted views you were fed and chose to swallow out weigh over 800 years of Common Law Jurisprudence.

 

 

[Rimmer]

Baiting flame removed

[VocalNeal]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The question of whether they can live like the opposite gender is a different matter

 

I am intrigued. How does one live like the opposite sex? 

 

Sex is biological? Gender is just a word. 

Edited March 31 by VocalNeal