Spoiler Alert
One must assume from reading the Sandie Peggie judgment that the tribunal was more concerned with discouraging further litigation than with giving full and fearless effect to the Equality Act.
At the heart of this case lies a straightforward question: does a biologically male employee have a legal right to undress in a female-only changing room? For Women Scotland answered that question at the Supreme Court: women-only spaces are for biological women.
Yet instead of applying that binding precedent, the tribunal awarded Sandie Peggie a technical win based primarily on procedural failings and delay, while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of her core complaint. The effect is a ruling that says: “You were treated badly, but only because you reacted to a situation we pretend has no legal significance.”
For Women Scotland affirmed that sex in law means biological sex – not gender identity. That matters because single-sex spaces exist specifically to recognise biological difference. The tribunal contradicted that point. It acknowledged that one person was biologically female and the other biologically male, then declared that this distinction becomes irrelevant once clothing is removed – precisely when women are at their most vulnerable.
In doing so, the tribunal ignored sex-based protections contained within the Equality Act at the very moment they are most needed.
The technical win deserves scrutiny. It is a sophisticated manoeuvre: the judgment is generous enough to grant Peggie a partial win, but not so generous as to uphold all her claims. It is, arguably, a savagely ingenious move – providing just enough success to dull enthusiasm for appeal, while ensuring that the most legally explosive question continues to bend to stonewall. The message is unmistakable: accept your crumbs and walk away.
The outcome is a legally incoherent position: sex is relevant enough to identify, but too controversial to enforce. The tribunal elevated employer preference above statutory entitlement. Because NHS Fife allowed a biologically male colleague into a women-only space, the court treated Peggie’s objection as unreasonable. When policy choices override legal rights, those rights have already been hollowed out.
One of the most troubling passages asserts there is insufficient evidence that a male person poses greater risk than a woman does. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of safeguarding. Safeguarding is not reactive – it is preventative. It exists because vulnerability begins at exposure. Voyeurism, indecent viewing, intimidation – these harms do not require physical contact. The tribunal’s logic would justify installing smoke alarms only after the fire has started.
In addition, there is a distinct tone of moral superiority: gender-critical beliefs are technically lawful, yet treated as socially defective. The implication is that Peggie was protected not because she was right, but because the law is obliged to tolerate her. A right that survives only in silence is no right at all.
This judgment leaves employers without clarity and women with fewer rights. The purpose of a judgment is not to maintain institutional comfort. It is to state the law. Peggie’s case presented a direct conflict – gender identity versus sex-based boundaries. The tribunal refused to resolve it in accordance with precedent. That refusal is the failure.
This is why Peggie should, in my view, appeal. Not for a different trophy, but because the law needs the courage this judgment lacked. If allowed to stand, it will be provided as proof of the proposition that single-sex rights are discretionary. That women’s privacy is conditional.
The emotional toll of continuing is something we should all recognise. Sandie Peggie has already shown a resilience most people will never be asked to demonstrate. But rights that depend on the stamina of those who defend them are already eroding.
Where fear governs the interpretation of rights, those rights are already being lost.
When Sandy launches her appeal, I promise to support it financially. I’m sure there are many others, here and elsewhere, who will do the same.
?
I’m in!
Yes. I’m in.
Absolutely! I hope the Fund raiser starts soon.
This will be very demanding on Sandie but this is how the entire TransCult campaign has been run. Make the process the punishment. Silence other women who would have come forward. Ignore the Law and force Stonewall interpretations on the Public by intimidation.
I would like to know why the Supreme Court pass a finding then sit back and watch it being ignored. This is why an appeal must take place to force Governments, Employers, Stores, Judges, Politician to obey the Law and protect Women and Girls.
I would definitely support a crowd funder for an appeal on point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal thence back to the Supreme Court if necessary. What must be understood is that for transactivist-captured organisations, the process (and cost) is the punishment for sex realists asserting their rights. This situation is akin to Miller’s ‘The Crucible.’ The overpowering of Reason by idiotic ideology that some people benefit from. Follow the money. Follow Big Pharma. This fight isn’t going away and we have to understand this.
Spot on, Joan. This judge is either an activist for the ‘trans’ lobby or he is acting on orders from the government – or, at a rich, he made himself look really inept and incompetent in law for reasons known only to himself.
If judges can ignore the law why can’t Joe Public?
Judge Rinder.
I absolutely would donate to a crowd funder for an appeal as well.
I had made an argument in the previous thread that the Government needs to get involved in this.
I know that government interference in the judicial and legal system is a dangerous path to go down but it seems that with every judgement made on this issue ends up as a fudge that tries to both appease woman and the Trans community.
Of course, it is essential to separate government from the legal system but what is to be done on this issue when plain facts of the definition of a woman is being ignored?
What is to be done? Parliament could try passing intelligent, coherent laws that don’t try to legislate for the impossible (“Men – sign up here to become women!” and vice versa); are not inconsistent with one another (e.g., Equality Act 2010 vs Gender Recognition Act 2004 vs Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018); and pay proper attention to the language used (e.g., avoid using the words sex and gender interchangeably).
We probably shouldn’t hold our breath.
I know I’m contradicting myself with my original comment because this has all been caused by bad legislation passed by the government in the first place.
As I said in the previous article ‘The public gets the government they voted for.’
Bilbo, interference by the state in the legal system is totally against all democratic principles. Separation of state and judiciary is essential to good governance, just as keeping the church out of state affairs is also necessary. This judge is an activist, if his language is anything by which to judge, pardon the pun. I just do not see how anyone versed in the law and in interpretation of the law – legal jurisprudence is, or used to be compulsory in attaining a legal qualification – could possibly have veered so far from not just the UKSC ruling, but from all previous law on this subject – which the UKSC merely clarified., The Common Law of Scotland treats ‘sex’ as biological sex. All previous legislation treats ‘sex’ as biological sex. So, where did he get this interpretation of how a cross-dressing man looks as the overriding factor in who can enter female spaces and who cannot? He made it up. Where does it say that any man can enter female spaces unless a woman objects? He made it up. He has put the onus back on women to bring cases to law. He is contemptible and blatantly non balanced and biased. Imagine if this man was sitting in judgement on you in a jury less trial?
The Tribunal HAD to come out in favour of Sandy Peggie. They could not have done otherwise. That is I think crystal clear.
The grounds however for their decision in favour of Sandie Peggy are not clear and in fact are obfuscating and or misleading. That however, in the politically screwed up country that Scotland is comes as no surprise.
So yes, Swinney and his government, and the accolyte managers in the NHS have lost. And for that they should be punished. Rotten, corrupt and vicious managers, albeit bending to the politicos, should be punished. That is the only way this nonsense is stopped.
And for that reason their could well be grounds for Sandy Peggie to appeal certain aspects of her overall favourable result. That of course is a big ask since she has had two years of her life brutalised because a biological guy wanted to swing his dick in the women’s changing room.
Good article Rev Stu. 8lluminating what the others do not illuminate.
I am not sure where is Sandie is based, but if Sandie Peggy is able to use Article XV111 in Scotland she should, this would gives her ” Private Rights ” as a biological woman, to private spaces, as set out in the treaty of union,
As private rights are for the evident utility of the subjects of Scotland, people based in Scotland cannot be altered, to public rights or superceded by public law,
I also would have thought as a side comment that Sandie Peggy could request thave a private right to a trial in Scotland with a full jury.
If she is based in Scotland.
As the house of lords stated that the Private rights in Scotland make the treaty of union incomplete as it cannot be altered and is a article entrenched into the treaty,
All women in Scotland should use article XV111 in and included as it is a private right of biological women and their private spaces even in public arena, due to public amenities and public bodies not allowed to supercede Scots private rights as set out.
The public bodies must be reminded, including courts , that they would not only breach the treaty of union but would end it.
It is a powerful tool for women in Scotland right now, that the rest of Britain does not have.
Scotland’s judges are moral cowards.
I really think it goes way beyond that now, Marie. Some are openly hostile to women’s rights and biased towards the ‘trans’ lobby, if recent cases are anything by which to judge.
Women in Scotland could back the Snp and government and courts into a corner on a case of breaching article XV111 over the Private Rights of biological women issue.
We have corrupt and incompetent policing, NHS Trusts, Judges and Politicians.
What hope is there in the world?
This must be appealed surely, what a dogs breakfast this judge has made out of this appeal.
If there is a crowdfunder I would be happy to support it. It really needs to be crystal clear where the law is, I in my naivety thought that the supreme court had done just that. Where the tribunal judge is at seems to be different.
I noticed that Sandies counsel said on the day of the judgement they would take time to read it before making further comment. I hope that comment is an announcement to appeal. Given all holes in the Judgement it should be like shooty in for Naomi Cunningham.
” The nurse and her legal team are expected to disclose their next steps at a press conference on Thursday.”
link to archive.is
I really hope Sandi has the resilience and courage to appeal. There is too much about this judgement that is in lawyer speak “problematic”. It appears the tribunal doesn’t think the EA applies in workplaces and that they didn’t consider workplace regulations from 1992 re single sex facilities.
IANAL but those who are feel the judgement is concerning…
I have just sat through Martin Geissler’s ‘Scotcast’ of last night and have never heard such a dog’s breakfast of so-called enlightened comment on anything in my life. This is why the BBC is failing. I have a lot of respect for Martin Geissler, but he should have insisted on a lawyer or a legal journalist to give an overview. With all due respect to the two chaps, they were talking absolute mince.
One of them stated: “There was a changing room [in A&E] where they had to change”, implying that Upton also had to change there when no other male doctor changed in the women’s (nurses’) changing room. It may not always unusual for doctors to change with nurses, but they would be female doctors and the changing room explicitly said ‘female changing g room’, so why was he not directed to the female doctors’ changing room if it was separate? Because they, the female doctors, would have created merry hell and not been intimidated.
The tribunal judge had a basic duty to follow the law, the law which the UKSC clarified, but did not change or amend in any way. According to the law, the women’s changing room should have remained single-sex and another room provided for Upton, but, speaking generally, these transvestite men never – but never – want anything other than the women’s spaces, and it has nothing to do with validation, but everything to do with the reasons they cross-dress in the first place – and those are because they are either paraphiliacs or fetishists to which every scrap of known evidence attests.
What women need to do now is take videos of these men and show how they behave and put them out there to the world. For the love of God, stop being so conciliatory. I hope that Nurse Peggie does appeal because, otherwise, the ‘trans’ lobby will simply campaign to have these men admitted based on their frocks and lippy, making life even more difficult for women. What Mr Kemp has done is beyond contempt. He should be removed. He paid no heed whatsoever to the law either before or after the UKSC ruling. Even the holding of a GRC did not automatically allow men into female spaces, and Upton had no GRC. The HR dept. at Fife Health Board are also guilty of gross negligence in their application of legal requirements within their policies, and, in the end, they are the ones who should carry the can, but the judge has proved himself to be unversed in the law. A judge unversed in the law! Imagine the impact on jury less trials!
Where else but in Scotland would you get away with running an openly partisan legal system? The woman-in-question should take the bastards on, but getting justice in Scotland is no easy matter. Vote SNP, my arse?
It would become a Scottish matter rather than a supreme Court matter.
1)
because it is Scots law, not Great Britain law,
2)
That the case is brought forward in Scotland.
3)
It Concerns the Rights to private rights of a subject in Scotland
4)
It is not English law, is is not The whole of Great Britain law,, it is not the law of the whole united kingdom, It is Scots law.
So is a matter for Scotland, for Scottish Courts, and the private right of a Scot, and the private right in Scotland to a full jury in trials in Scots law
as it was the lack of justice stated by the Three Estate of Scotland that king James was abandoned. As stated to to the pre-terms and conditions of the treaty of union.
This is Scots law, and a Scottish matter.
A excellent matter of law for women, children and the men, Scots law,
Men believing themselves to be women is a private matter, not a public matter For all the subjects of Scotland to believe, especially when that private matter belief is imposed on the private spaces and private rights of biological women and children in Scotland,
I wonder if the SNP and the Courts in Scotland will uphold article XV111 as believers of a treaty of union.
Lord Hodge, soon to retire, is a Scottish judge in the Supreme Court, James, and the For Women Scotland case was based equally on Scots Law and English Law as both were applicable. No other ruling worthy of the name could have been made in Scotland itself. This tribunal, however, referred only to workplace policy and law, but a precedent could have been set for how employers treat their female and ‘trans’ staff by affording each a separate space. Remember, in both the Sandie Peggie case and the Darlington Nurses’ case, the women were offered tiny rooms in which to change rather than have the man removed and allocated a small changing room to himself.
This is, essentially, what the UKSC underlined, anyway. That judge was way, way off-beam in relation to the existing law, let alone the UKSC ruling. Utterly disgraceful. Scotland is a basket case where the government refuses to publish legal guidance to the public institutions and judges are making up the law as they go along. The injustice is so gross now as to be plainly one-sided on the side of the men in frocks. Oh, beam me up, Scottie!
Lets all shout out I’ll crowd fund for a new hearing, WHY?
Its cheaper just to remove the SNP from government, lets be honest the real problem we have is the SNP and the Scottish government both being the same thing and causing the Scotland troubles for both women and the Independence movement.
Rather than vote for a bunch of chicken wing nuggets lets use our votes next year and put the parliament out of reach of the SNP.
The SNP are never going to delivery Independence and they are hell bent of trans rights even if it destroys the SNP and Scotland right to be Independent.
For me F*ck the stupid idea of voting for Liberate Scotland which is never going to deliver Independence not in out lifetime.
If you really wanted to help women and Scotland we have to remove this government and the SNP from office and vote for a one of Unionist party’s on the constancy constituency and give our vote to another party on the list.
It would be better to hand the parliament to a unionist party than continue for another 5yrs with the SNP in charge.
Absolutely 100% Yes, voting against the SNP in 2026 is the best and really the only sensible option to break the status quo in Scottish politics. However, I don’t hold out much hope, there are too many fantasy’s (e.g. the UN) and unicorns on the table for the movement to realise, in sufficient numbers, what they have to do. It’ll be a weakened SNP minority government limping on for another term, achieving very little, especially not on independence.
I don’t see the SNP dying any time soon as a result of its finances, I had hoped but they seen to have luck on their side and while this rotten party’s run by Redcoats Scotland is doomed as is women.
I honestly believe the dream of Independence is truly gone and its the SNP who’s put all the obstacles in place to stop it.
Scotland wants Independence and women want women to be protected, the trouble is not everyone in Scotland pay as much attention to politics like us and this is how the SNP is getting away with its crimes.
Do I give a F*ck about Holyrood no i don’t its the noose around a Scots neck and it was designed like that and the SNP is playing the section 30 just like sturgeon said the section 30 is the Gold Standard its just that we didn’t know whats she meant at the time when she said that that the Gold standard was the SNP stay in the Union clause and blame Westminster for Scotland’s problems.
Aidan, I wished people could see the bigger picture but they don’t and England is winning and the SNP and Scottish government is entirely happy with that.
If next year the SNP lost the election and died as a party it would give the movement the needed three years until the Westminster election to educate and put forward a plan not to con but to deliver Independence once and for all.
Whilst they can harness 30/35% of the vote they’ll have enough income from short money, from a cut of their MP’s salaries and from other gigs like fundraiser dinners to bumble along. The story would change however if they could be relegated to a single figure number of MP’s and MSP’s. In that situation, either the SNP could be vulnerable to being taken over by new leadership or being overtaken as the party of independence.
However, you can see below from Twat as to why that won’t happen. His view is a popular one in the independence movement, which means for the foreseeable future the SNP will be both too weak and moribund to do anything about independence, but still too strong to be overtaken or replaced. The reality as well is that whilst support for independence amongst the young is high, most of the most successful and effective activists are much older and simply don’t have the energy to resurrect the independence campaign out of the doldrums over the next decade.
Now watch the howling!
Logically, voting for any colonialist party (incl SNP) “is never going to deliver Independence” in anybody’s lifetime!
At least Liberate Scotland and Salvo/Liberation Scotland are making pro-active efforts, including to better inform the people of our ‘condition’, to unveil our colonial reality to them and the international community. Who else is?
Liberate Scotland, was a great idea if all Indy party’s got involved but they ain’t.
Liberate Scotland constant call for unity with the SNP and Alba for months has resulted in wasted time Scotland just doesn’t have.
The SNP is more dangerous than any other party in Scotland because this rotten party have harnessed the Indy movement votes of the promise of a better life.
During Sturgeon years as FM she spent that time laughing and calls us all cyber nats and keyboard worriers and now John Swinney is doing the same except he’s went one step further he actually nailed Scotland coffin to the wall with his so called Indy plan.
For me it makes more sense to reject the SNP at the ballot box therefore completely rejecting the SNP plan on Independence because if we do not Scotland is gone.
The SNP plan on Independence isn’t a game changer its the death of Scotland and I can not stress enough how important it is to STOP the SNP winning the 2026 election its that important.
THE SNP NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED OR ITS GAME OVER FOR SCOTLAND, and John Swinney knows it.
First of all to Natasha Sterling thank you for this post it echoes what most right thinking persons will think of this deluded fools judgment
as I said in yesterdays post ANYONE who uses the stupid saying “assigned at birth” instead of the REALITY “observed at birth” is already CAPTURED by the LUNACY and should not have the ability to make such judgments
In response to 100% yes, have you been paying attention over the last few years, it is NOT only the Scum Nonce Party who inflicted this lunacy and depravity on the Scottish people particularly women and girls , ALL parties voted the GRR bill through HR , Labour , Tories ,Lib Dumbs ,Greens and snp
The ONLY reason it was stopped was through WM rules to rub salt into the snp wounds and to show Scots how perverted the snp were , if you look back Labour , Tories , Lib Dumbs and Greens were ALL highly supportive of TRANNY STONEWALL rules and regulations, so much so that they were involved directly in most WM government departments
As to your derogatory comments re Liberate Scotland you will notice that uber unionist Adun was the first to JUMP ON your comment agreeing and supporting you that to get rid of the snp we HAD to vote for a yoonionist party , is your memory so bad that you don’t remember the corruption and incompetence that the scum Labour unionist party inflicted on Scotland and Scots
ALL your pals the yoonionist clowns posting on here are desperate to do is to retain the yoonion and for Scots to keep on subsidising engerland for without Scotland they are SKINT
So 100% yes think back on how incompetent and corrupt yoonionist parties are and have been
Good one, TH, but a smidge verbose.
I asked Grok to summarise:
“Vote SNP one and two for another 5 years of the same”.
Interestingly enough, showing just how fast AI is advancing, Grok added a little extra of its own:
“Deep down, you know you always will vote SNP, no matter what”.
So explain to us all how voting for liberate Scotland and the SNP remaining in power benefit Scotland and how many seats do you believe liberate Scotland will achieve, next year.
Lets be more than favorable and give them five seats, please tell me what will they do with the five seats?
If the SNP win next years election on the proposal that the SNP needs to win a single party majority and that a section 30 order has to be given is the only way Scotland can be Independent is 100% doomed to fail and Scots should reject this plan or Scotland is finished.
Next year isn’t about who your voting for it about whats on offer and the offer from the SNP on its Independence plan is a hand written note from John Swinney to Scotland saying Independence is dead and finished and he knows it.
There won’t be one Westminster government who won’t look back after next years election and say the SNP set the bench mark who a section 30 order should be granted and here lies the trap for us and Scotland and there isn’t enough time or money to educate people on the trap.
Quite 100% Yes, it might be different if Liberate were a genuine challenger to the SNP, but 6 months out from the election they aren’t even registering in the polls, and as far as I can see they have no serious strategy to change that. Even if every single person who comments on here were persuaded to vote for them, that’s like 15-20 people. It’s not the stuff of serious politics.
So @Twat – since you denigrate this plan, what does your plan look like to get us from where we are now to an independent Scotland? What needs to be done when and by whom to make this happen? Perhaps you can add something constructive for once.
Getting justice in Scotland is possible if thought out properly, there are tools and levers that can be used, its about knowing that the laws in Scotland differ from the rest of Great Britains United kingdom and involves the so called treaty of union,
IF we are still bound to that, which I presume most Scots and English think so, because Scotland is still seeking independence from England,
Then meanwhile it is to Scotlands advantage (while stuck) to use it as legal opposition and tool to enhance our standard of life and improve the bullshit laws being placed of us through the SNP and devolved governance and the united kingdom,
Because it does not let Lammmey or starmer of the hook either when it comes to trial by jury or ID cards,
The use of Private Rights law is only for the Subjects of Scotland for their evident utility, not for government or any attached government branch,
So it may become evident in the future that Scotland will be able to use Private Right in many ares of our private lives, while being refused independence,
Including the right to self determination,
So not to be ignored. It may be seen as a asset to Scotland that was unforeseen at the time of creating a union,
Can this Upton creature not be prosecuted as a sex pest? For that is surely what he is. He’s bound to have “history”.
If Scotland was already independent the SNP AND DEVOLVED government would not exist,
For the moment we seem to be in suspended animation,
But it does not mean that legally as things are we can not stand up for ourselves, we can and should from any and every angle and lever we have at our disposal, instead of sitting waiting and moaning,
That never becomes a thorn in the side, a nettle or thistle in this case to hard to grasp in the hand, to hard to hold and retain.
James, I would dearly love to to see an independent Scotland but just look across the water to Ireland to see the unholy mess there. The ‘woke’ have lost their minds – if they ever had them in the first instance. Eire has fallen to ‘be kind’ idiots. There is something about being a wee country or a less powerful country next to a big, powerful neighbour that rots the brain: “we have to be be different from them, so let’s destroy ourselves to spite them”. Madness.
I genuinely don’t understand how judges are allowed to publish judgements that are completely incorrect on the basics of the law, contradicting one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions ever made as just one of the examples of the mistakes in law made. It’s not just an abrogation of responsibility, but in my view is a totally undermines the entire purpose of the rule of law and the trust the public place on our judiciary. And it can’t be left to one Scottish woman to fight it alone – it should be the job of the state to not allow judges to spout on with whatever bullshit they feel like. I know in my job, well I wouldn’t have one if I published something that was just so plainly incorrect – and my job does not involve the utmost responsibility to the public good as that of a judge has. Yes it is not binding for the general public, but even one Scottish citizen being failed so miserably cannot be allowed to stand.
Yep. The rule of law – who cares for that?? Not Scotland’s judges.
Following is from HELEN JOYCE’s book ‘TRANS: When Ideology Meets Reality’ –
« In the spread of gender-identity ideology, developments in academia played a crucial role. This is not the place for an extended critique of the thinking that evolved on American campuses out of 1960s French philosophy and literary criticism into gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory and the like. I will merely touch on what some have dubbed ‘applied postmodernism’ and the form of activism, known as ‘social justice’, that seeks to remake humanity along these ideological lines. And I will lay out the key elements that have enabled transsexuality, once understood as a rare anomaly, to be converted into an all-encompassing theory of sex and gender, and body and mind. Within applied postmodernism, objectivity is essentially impossible. Logic and reason are not ideals to be striven for, but attempts to shore up privilege. Language is taken to shape reality, not describe it. Oppression is brought into existence by discourse. Equality is no longer achieved by replacing unjust laws and practices with new ones that give everyone the chance to thrive, but by individuals defining their own identities, and ‘troubling’ or ‘queering’ the definitions of oppressed groups. »
Naw, you’ve got that wrong.
It was an episode of “Rumpole Of The Bailey” wot dun it.
Scotland…the logic-free banana republic brought to you courtesy of the invertebrate Swinney and his loathsome bottom feeders in the SNP. A fish rots from the head… you only need to turn your nose in the direction of Holyrood to figure that out.
We are ruled by an elite class of jackasses.
Let’s not forget that Fife Health Board (and countless other public and private bodies) were following allegedly unlawful instructions issued by the Scottish Government. Those responsible for issuing the allegedly unlawful guidance need to be held to account.
In colonial societies the co-opted dominant national party: “helps the government to hold the people down. It becomes more and more clearly anti-democratic, an implement of coercion. it chooses a dictatorship of the national-socialist type… this fascism is the dialectic result of states which were semi-colonial..” (Fanon).
‘doun-hauden’ = oppressed.
Dr. Upton. The credible witness
link to bbc.co.uk
WHAT’S GOING ON?
“At great turning-points of world-history the relativity of our traditional measures and opinions manifests itself in a clear way. At these historical turning points those who had considered these traditional measures and opinions to be the firm ground of their personal and societal life easily fall prey to a state of spiritual uprooting, in which they surrender themselves to a radical relativism, which has lost all faith in an absolute truth.” (Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘In the Twilight of Western Thought’.)
In Art History we had Neo-Classicism versus Romanticism. Humanism is again clearly in crisis. It struggles anew between a mechanistic, rationalistic, polarity which presupposes the abiding normative laws of mathematics and physics — a sort of clockwork UNI-verse model, if you like — and a subjectivistic, irrationalistic, personalistic polarity which radically rejects all normativity, and succumbs to infinite flux — a haywire MULTI-verse model of alternative cosmic realities, if you like.
Consider the recent Oscar-winning Michelle Yeoh ultra-postmodernist movie ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’. Earlier movies such as Space Odyssey 2001, Robocop, Bladerunner, Terminator, Matrix, etc had of course already confirmed a dichotomy between mechanistic law and personal freedom.
We might also note with some apprehension the portending dissolution of human normativity into potentially non-regulated bio-engineering, transhumanism, AI consciousness etc.
The relativism of the ultra-subjectivistic TRANS polarity of course strikingly rejects the normative laws of biology. But it also iconoclastically rejects the normative laws of speech and civilised discourse upon which our democracy depends — hence its modus operandi presents rather as strident intransigence, raw power, and infantilised hysteria.
David Locher, in his 1999 online article ‘Unacknowledged Roots and Blatant Imitation: Postmodernism and the Dada Movement’ stated that:
“Postmodernism is essentially a neo-Dada movement, updated and focused more specifically on social philosophical issues.”
Elsewhere, Locher writes:
“At the heart of postmodernism lies the assumption that most of the things that we take for granted are, in fact, simply illusions. […] In other words, meaning is arbitrary, relative, and subjective. Language is, in its own way, reality. What we refer to as reality is not knowable, and we live in the illusion that we are in touch with it.” (Postmodernism as Neo-Dada)
The above Locher observation brings to mind Herman Dooyeweerd’s rather gnomic remark:
“The walls of the absolutization of personal individuality have no windows.”
Frearghas, thank you for making me think further than before.
Returning to practical circumstances, if there were a channel of communication then I would ask Sandie Peggie to commence fund-raising and devising instructions for legal representatives for appeal against the bulk of findings of the recent Employment Tribunal
I wish to contribute some money for that purpose.
If Court rules for evidence allow introduction of fresh material then, perhaps, the Tribunal has made some useful suggestions for overturning its own findings.
On BBC Reporting Scotland tonight – Robin Moira White (“I was the first barrister to transition from male to female in practice at the employment and discrimination bar in 2011.”) believes that the Tribunal decision was correct.
There you have it folks – a definitive independent, impartial view!
link to bbc.co.uk
Not in the habit of posting a BBC website link but Baroness Falkner is saying exactly what Rev said yesterday.
Baroness Falkner led the UK’s equality watchdog until last month
Asked about the tribunal’s judgement in Ms Peggie’s case, the peer said that “on the face of it” it appeared “not be to be compatible” with the Supreme Court ruling.
She said: “If you decide that you’re providing a single-sex facility, then you cannot allow any biological males into that facility.”
Baroness Falkner told BBC Scotland News there were “an awful lot of questions about the veracity” of the tribunal’s ruling and said it was “more than likely” that it would be appealed.
“It is a highly unusual and surprising judgement if you base it on what happened in court during those months, and the written submissions,” she said.
this Tribunal ruling makes a mockery of tribunals, bending over backwards in trying to “appease” everyone or offending the Trans society.
Times
Sandie Peggie case
Stu given credit
Archived
link to archive.is
Its funny you’ve got a voice today, well done. Because on the constitutional question the SNP has you pissing your pants to ask the right questions when you have their in leaders right in front of you.
Geoff Anderson,
I apologize I got you confused with someone else.