“Delegitimising”. These posts are a lawyer, a KC who formerly practised in tax law, who now runs a not for profit campaigning law organisation he set up, and who has a close personal interest in these issues, delegitimising the judgment of our country’s final court of appeal pic.twitter.com/Ic8VzElLPs
Sadly for him he’s on record saying what the Supreme Court rules is the law.
On a previous occasion in 2019 (the ruling that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful) when a judgment of the UK Supreme Court attracted public controversy, this selfsame commentator said something very different about the legitimacy of the court and its decision pic.twitter.com/znkamaJBhZ
But there is a very real question about the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore basic tenets of fairness: excluding all trans representation and allowing in the final appeal court fresh evidence [that] could not be tested.
What is he talking about about?
“Excluding all trans representation”? What does he mean by that?
“Allowing fresh evidence that could not be tested”? What evidence was that?
He means it’s not fair that men can’t be legally recognized as women. I suppose some people never learn that life just isn’t fair. No matter how consumed in whatever crackpot ideology you subscribe to in fact. Look at all the god botherers who find this notion so difficult to believe that they rationalize incessantly. “God’s will” and so forth. So no matter how hard they try, the gender dysphoric refuse to understand that accidents of birth are just not fair. Yet biology is biology, n’est ce pas? I remember briefly wondering why I couldn’t be born into a family of wealthy geniuses too. Briefly, when I was about 7. :P
Honestly, that it’s become so unbelievably silly that males and females has to be legislated for in the first place (???) would be beyond belief only a couple of decades ago, but here we are.
Yeah but when Jolyon objects to a supreme court ruling, it’s because he sees legitimate flaws in the judges’ reasoning; when you object, it’s because you’re an evil bigot who wants to inflict misery.
In other words, the fundamental attribution fallacy, which is really just a failure of theory of mind.
Perhaps if Maugham had polled KCs outside the Stonewall Law bubble, he might have heard something different. He might have not violated Feynman’s First Principle: “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
What “untested” “new evidence” could he possibly be talking about? You don’t need new evidence to show that men aren’t women, and can’t become women, and that neither of these facts is changed by any “certificate.” Legal fictions remain fictions; they have no bearing on the state of reality.
And as for Jolyon’s record, it’s got plenty of blemishes, many of which he himself posted on social media.
What is he talking about about?
“Excluding all trans representation”? What does he mean by that?
“Allowing fresh evidence that could not be tested”? What evidence was that?
He means it’s not fair that men can’t be legally recognized as women. I suppose some people never learn that life just isn’t fair. No matter how consumed in whatever crackpot ideology you subscribe to in fact. Look at all the god botherers who find this notion so difficult to believe that they rationalize incessantly. “God’s will” and so forth. So no matter how hard they try, the gender dysphoric refuse to understand that accidents of birth are just not fair. Yet biology is biology, n’est ce pas? I remember briefly wondering why I couldn’t be born into a family of wealthy geniuses too. Briefly, when I was about 7. :P
Honestly, that it’s become so unbelievably silly that males and females has to be legislated for in the first place (???) would be beyond belief only a couple of decades ago, but here we are.
Yeah but when Jolyon objects to a supreme court ruling, it’s because he sees legitimate flaws in the judges’ reasoning; when you object, it’s because you’re an evil bigot who wants to inflict misery.
In other words, the fundamental attribution fallacy, which is really just a failure of theory of mind.
Perhaps if Maugham had polled KCs outside the Stonewall Law bubble, he might have heard something different. He might have not violated Feynman’s First Principle: “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
What “untested” “new evidence” could he possibly be talking about? You don’t need new evidence to show that men aren’t women, and can’t become women, and that neither of these facts is changed by any “certificate.” Legal fictions remain fictions; they have no bearing on the state of reality.
And as for Jolyon’s record, it’s got plenty of blemishes, many of which he himself posted on social media.