@GeofCox I share @benofbrown's caution.

#BridgetPhillipson's track record on #trans rights is atrocious. If #Phillipson wanted to support trans people, the simple remedy would be to pass a one-sentence amendment to the #EA2010 making a GRC define sex in the EA as it does elsewhere. The #UKSC ruling in #FWS would be redundant.

This intervention marks a useful but small retreat from the #EHRC's extremist #transExclusion agenda. Phillipson just wants to crap on us less crudely.

Absolutely, @simon_brooke. The #UKSC inverted reality, and stripped rights that parliament had clearly intended to confer.

That could have been done honestly by Parliament. It could have voted to clarify definitions either way, and it could still do so. A simple amendment could undo the #FWS judgment.

But my meta point is that both with Andrew and with #trans people, UK law was simply pulled out of a conjurer's hat, then solemnised as if it was ancient. The "#BritishConstitution" is a farce.

Smilarly, the #UKSC's stripping of trans rights in #FWS could have been done in a very simple bill amending the Equality Act 2020. That would still have been a cruelly devastating breach of #ECHR rights, but at least it would have been procedurally honest.

#UKania does sometimes do procedural honesty. But it's optional.

END OF THREAD

This is of course what happened In the #UKSC's judgment in #FWS. The judges refused to hear any opposing arguments, ignored all the evidence in parliamentary proceedings of the clearly stared intent of ministers. They then proceeded to not just gut the existing statutory framework and overturn it, but to do so on the basis of absurdist concepts such as "biological sex", which they didn't even attempt to define.

In both cases, sleight of hand is masquerading as law.

>>