Lecturer in public law
@UofGLaw
| Equality law + constitutional theory | "Equality Before the Law" Out Now | "Sex, Gender Identity and the Law" forthcoming 2025
Forthcoming in the Industrial Law Journal: Discrimination and Manifestation of Belief, where I discuss the Higgs v Farmer's School case in some detail. Sincere thanks to
@thebigbogg
for very helpful comments on a previous draft.
If you think the phrase “women’s boundaries matter” is a bigoted dog-whistle you may be suffering from misogyny. Symptoms include failure to respect boundaries and a belief that women asserting their boundaries is motivated by hatred rather than privacy, dignity, and consent.
This is a perfect example of the conflict of rights between sex and gender. Pretending there’s no clash leaves individual duty bearers in an impossible situation.
A 🧵on the law to explain why these claims that
@jk_rowling
has committed a crime are baseless. The Equality Act doesn't regulate private relationships. It deals with employment & the provision of goods/services. Rowling owes India no duties under the Act. No breach has occurred.
1. It’s Dr Foran. 2. Please stop tagging my employer and trying to get me into some kind of trouble. It won’t work. 3. Don’t imply that explaining the law makes students unsafe. It’s extremely patronising to them. My students are among the best in the country and deserve respect.
Since this keeps coming up, I have a first class LLB from Trinity College Dublin (not in the U.K.), which won the Julian Prize; an MSc in Law and Anthropology from the LSE; and a PhD in constitutional and equality law from Cambridge which won the Yorke Prize.
This is a good example of how a misunderstanding of the law can lead to further confusion. Being protected under gender reassignment means you can’t be fired or denied services for proposing to change sex. It doesn’t mean you are legally entitled to be treated as the opposite sex
PM says a man is a man, a woman is a woman.
The Equalities Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment.
So isn't Sunak breaking the law, Transport Sec
@Mark_J_Harper
?
#KayBurley
FC
India blocked me before tweeting this so I assume didn't want an answer to these questions but since anti-discrimination law is one of my areas of expertise I'm happy to provide some anyway.
This is genuinely shocking. Prof Binchy is one of the most respected Irish legal thinkers of the last century. I’ve seen parliamentary committees where witness have been disrespected before but never like this. It brings the entire Oireachtas into disrepute. What a shameful…
In January after a pile on against
@RosieDuffield1
, I explained the finding of a German court that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show that trans people were targeted in the Holocaust. This led to a formal complaint to my employer that I was a holocaust denier.
I’ll need someone to check the translation from but my understanding is that this claim is false. In fact the opposite is true: a German court dismissed the claim that it’s Holocaust denial when they said that there was no systematic targeting of trans people by the Nazis.
This is mandatory NHS training. Its wrong on the law. Specifically the claim that being protected under gender reassignment gives you a legal right of access to single-sex services. Being protected under GR does not change your legal sex and does not grant sex-based entitlements.
There are many reasonable arguments over what the purpose of single sex spaces are and who each space should cater to.
"Women will be raped anyway" isn't one of them.
The human rights of many women depend on female-only spaces. Anyone presenting the defence of women's rights as transphobic is fuelling a culture war by setting trans rights and women's rights in direct conflict. Don't let anyone who does this tell you rights aren't pie.
I support the right to peaceful protest. This isn’t peaceful. It’s an academic so enraged at a book he’s not read that he’s intimidating a woman by slowly thrusting his pelvis towards her and wilfully blocking her path with said pelvis. While women jeer and laugh at her.
For context,
@moira_robin
has just insinuated that I’ve personally contributed to the murder of a child because of my academic work on equality law. This is a barrister.
@moira_robin
@michaelpforan
What an incredibly crass (not to say defamatory) thing to say, when we have no information about the crime and when the police has asked everyone to refrain from inflammatory speculation.
Robin White seems to be encouraging schools and teachers to ignore government guidance. A school or teacher that did this & as a result compromised the safeguarding of children would be in serious legal trouble. No responsible lawyer would advise this.🧵
Teresa falls into a common trap that people who contribute to legislation do: thinking that their interpretation trumps the judgment of courts and expert lawyers interpreting the law. Teresa's interpretation has been conclusively rejected in court multiple times.
Happy New Year, dear siblings all, from a cis woman who helped draft the Equality Act 2010. A gentle reminder that when EA2010 speaks of women it means ALL women. The word cis is absent from the act; there are NO cis-specific rights. Oh, and ‘sex based rights’ don’t exist.
An epidemic has obviously negative connotations.
Dictionary definition = a disease, an undesirable phenomenon, of something bad widespread in community
It shouldn't need to be said that calling any group of people an epidemic is a bad thing
The Minister owes me an apology.
Back from my break and I bring good news.
Contract is signed so I’m delighted to say I’ll be publishing a book on Sex, Gender Identity, and the Law with Cambridge University Press! All going well it should be published in 2025 with the paperback available at launch for £22.99.
Funny how many people are arguing that unlawful discrimination is actually fine if staff just refuse. Nothing you can do I guess. Sorry about that.
How many of them would be saying this if it was racial discrimination? Or sexual orientation?
This is defamatory. It’s a vile accusation to make about someone. This is a barrister who is ostensibly subject to professional social media standards. This needs to stop. Robin has crossed the line (again).
I hope some people are beginning to realise that a huge part of what made discussion of gender issues so toxic was the vitriolic personal attacks people who chose to engage received.
“We wouldn’t do this with any other community”.
Men. We do it with men. We have safeguarding in place because we know that most men are law abiding and just want to live their lives. But some men rape.
Single sex spaces aren’t only for safety but that is one function.
Deputy First Minister Shona Robison told Holyrood last year there’s “no evidence” predatory men ever had to “pretend to be anything else” to “carry out abusive behaviour”.
Comments made during gender reform debate.
How does that square with Andrew Miller/Amy George?
@SkyNews
This is unlawful discrimination. It’s direct discrimination and there is no scope for justification. Direct discrimination is unlawful even if a service provider was concerned that their staff would not work for someone with any PC, be it race, religion, gender reassignment etc
A statement regarding Joanna Cherry’s participation in The Stand’s Edinburgh Fringe programme, which will no longer go ahead. For more on this, please visit:
Once again I’m finding myself fighting with people over the correct interpretation of the law. Not usually a problem but here - again - it’s resulting in accusations that I’m a bigot for explaining a court decision. Disagreement is fine. Accusations of bigotry is not argument.
Controversial statement incoming: I don’t think it’s appropriate to follow women down a street yelling abuse at them and whipping up a mob to harass and intimidate them.
Even more controversial: I don’t think any sane person would then attack the women for how they respond.
Quick explainer: If a woman smiles as masked men surround her in the street shouting "FUCK [insert her name here}", she must have enjoyed it and has no cause to complain. If she cries, she's weaponising her tears. I think that covers it.
Robin has again attacked my character while claiming that my repeating word for word what senior judges have said about the law in this area is clearly incorrect and would lead those who followed the caselaw to clearly engage in unlawful discrimination. Robin cites no caselaw.
Privacy rights are not absolute. They must be balanced against the rights of others.
You absolutely have a right to know the biological sex of someone washing your genitals if their sex matters for whether you would give consent. Without consent that is a serious sexual assault
You do not have a right to know other people's medical history
If you can't tell if someone is trans it doesn't affect you. If you can tell and you're transphobic you can just ask for someone else
Violating trans people's privacy is immoral and dangerous
Staff who are uncomfortable providing service to black people or women or Muslims or gay people or trans people or people with protected philosophical beliefs don’t get to rely on that discomfort to excuse unlawful discrimination. Workers don’t have a right to discriminate.
The effect of making accusations of Holocaust denialism is to chill speech. Being accused of something as vile as this is an awful thing to experience. But the court found what it found. The historical record is contested. This is a matter of evidence and fact not moral purity.
Robin talking absolute bollox again. Sorry for the language but I’ve lost my patience. Robin is pretending that a statutory obligation to provide separate facilities for boys & girls doesn’t require schools to provide facilities for boys & girls to use separate from each other.
Some academic lawyers are very frustrated that some people are misunderstanding the letter of the law in the Hate Crime Act, eg believing that misgendering is now a crime, but who are not engaging with where that misinformation is coming from: the Scottish government & Police.
You’d be surprised how many people with no legal qualifications whatsoever are absolutely convinced that the lawyers telling them they’ve misunderstood the law must be lying, unqualified or engaged in fraud. The possibility that they’ve misunderstood something seems alien to them
Just finished reading the s35 challenge judgment. Correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the Court rejected every single argument the Scottish government made. It lost on framing, whether the law had be modified, what standard of review is apt and on the substance of review.
This is not a normal response to someone pointing out that you don’t have a right to discriminate against someone just because they make you feel uncomfortable.
I’ve thought hard about saying this but I think at this point, it’s fair. Many people are ardently convinced that I know nothing about the law or that I’m a bigot because someone they trust - a barrister - is publicly and repeatedly telling them that I am. This has consequences.
Academic lawyers discussing important cases that touch upon controversial topics shouldn’t have to face these recurring accusations of bigotry and attempts to have them fired. I know my job is safe but this is still distressing. That’s the point, of course.
I’m not an expert in German law. I’m not a native German speaker. I’m therefore entirely open to being proven wrong based on legal expertise or linguistic competence that I don’t have. But accusing me of being a holocaust denier for this is reprehensible.
Section 12 of the Equality Act defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. It protects those who are same-sex attracted, opposite-sex attracted or attracted to either sex. The Equality Act is not replicating conversion therapy phrases in this section.
Academic lawyers discussing important cases that touch upon controversial topics shouldn’t have to face these recurring accusations of bigotry and attempts to have them fired. I know my job is safe but this is still distressing. That’s the point, of course.
Once again I’m finding myself fighting with people over the correct interpretation of the law. Not usually a problem but here - again - it’s resulting in accusations that I’m a bigot for explaining a court decision. Disagreement is fine. Accusations of bigotry is not argument.
The last week has really tested my ability to remain polite in the face of rudeness, smears & baseless accusations. I think I’m holding up pretty well all things considered but I might be putting the phone down more often than before. Apologies in advance for delayed response.
Once again a barrister accuses me (although at this point the misspelling of my name must be intentional) of endangering the lives of trans people. This is so deeply unprofessional, inappropriate, and bordering increasingly on defamatory.
This compete misstatement of the law is coming from an academic union. Not only do academics have the general rights to freedom of expression everyone has, including the right to offend, we have heightened protection as academics due to legal protection for academic freedom.
This thread misunderstands the law. It looks like it's very informative but it's not. Dr Webberley isn't a lawyer as far as I know so this is either the result of misunderstanding or it's repeating misinformation.
Hats off to those fiercely defending the safety of young trans individuals 🏳️⚧️! We won't back down in the battle for children to freely use the restroom that matches their gender identity. 🚻 Know the law:
Honestly the last few days have really blown me away with the amount of people who think policy or guidance can magically fix or ignore aspects of a legislative framework. These are lawyers who think a policy document trumps legislative texts … lawyers
This is completely false. There is no legal prohibition on asking if someone has a GRC. Its a criminal offence to disclose that information without lawful excuse if you come across it in an official capacity. That is not and has never been a prohibition on asking.
@KazGurney
@turktownsaint
@michaelpforan
D) it's not legal to ask to see a GRC so there's no way for them to tell anyway. Even the disclosure and barring service (the org that runs criminal records checks for employers) has a process to allow trans people to disclose our former names which preserves our privacy.
Robin has been making these smears against me for months now and it’s convinced more than a few people that I’m not qualified or that I should be fired. My job is safe, thankfully, because despite what Robin would have others believe, I’m good at my job.
I normally cringe when people announce that they’re quitting twitter, but here it goes. The last few months have been great but extremely intense and I need a break. See you all again on the other side!
Johnny is protesting an event discussing a book he hasnt read and doesn’t know the content of. He’s voted to condemn the book he doesn’t know the content of. An editor, when asked why people are protesting, said she thinks they haven’t read the book and don’t care to. She’s right
Academic freedom means nothing if it doesn’t give space for a scholar to voice uncomfortable truths. The easier thing to do after something like this is to keep your head down and hope people leave you alone. But the right thing to do is engage where there is controversy.
Exactly. You don’t rise by stamping on women’s rights.
The onus is on you to to justify stripping protections in the Equality Act that protect single-sex services and associations.
If defending women’s rights is an attack on trans rights then you’re not lifting all boats.
Seeing some comments like this claiming that I’ve been rude or abusive to people. I have been nothing but polite with Katy, who has in contrast accuses me of being a bigot and a transphobe on numerous occasions. Saying I’m being abusive to justify your own behaviour is weak.
Teresa overclaimed. She put herself out as having a level of expertise and authority that she does not have. Experts in statutory drafting called her on it and now she's claiming that people calling her on her misrepresentation are transphobic. Don't be like Teresa.
@debrakidd
@Scott_Wortley
@CaraPac46808618
3 Worse by far, of course, is the transphobia which some at least of ‘What did you draft?’ qs seek to conceal. I guess t&rfs just cannot bear fact that an aspiring cis ally actually knows, at first, documented hand, about EA2010. I am so proud to have worked with trans gps on it.
That’s because competent lawyers don’t deal in slogans. Law protects from gender reassign discrim which you could call trans rights as a political gloss. Whether there are other claims currently not recognised in law say to selfID is not something a witness can wax lyrically on
Really concerning police guidance. Regardless of GRC, a transgender officer will search the ‘gender’ which is the same as their ‘lived gender’.
If someone doesn’t want to be searched by the transgender office then it’s ‘essential’ the officer gets support and consider a hate…
This is such an insult to working class people who somehow - to the shock of many - can comport themselves with professionalism and decency. I grew up in Tallaght. This is bigotry of low expectations for working class people.
I see the usual brigade trying their best to put a strong working class woman from Tallaght in her place today. Lynn Ruane is a dedicated parliamentarian that has contributed far more to marginalised communities than those having a go at her!
Just as a note for everyone with
@michaelpforan
being incredibly transphobic of late, He works for
@UofGlasgow
it would be a shame if everyone reached out to them and let them know the type of stuff their lecturers are putting out on twitter
complaints
@glasgow
.ac.uk
When I decided to publish on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill I was very concerned about receiving abuse for it. Have been genuinely surprised at how minor the pushback has been and I’m certain it would have been different if I were a woman.
Taking a break from social medial to detoxify for January. I used to hate people who advertised this but if you’re trying to get ahold of me I won’t be around here (and apologies to those I’ve not gotten back to yet 😅😬)
We blocked each other after Robin accused me of being responsible for the murder of Brianna Ghey so I’m just seeing this now. The thrust of Robins analysis is that it would be indirect discrimination for schools to abide by statutory obligations to have sex separated toilets.
I swear to God there is nothing more infuriating than an untrained man who has found a random extract from guidance, thinks it outweighs established caselaw or the learned application of longstanding legal principles, and flat out refuses to listen when corrected.
If you’ve been following the news around the Scottish Gender Recognition Bill you might be interested in this long form analysis I’ve done on the impact the Bill will have on U.K. equality law and the case for U.K. government intervention to prevent that.
This is just flat out untrue. A GRC does give you extra rights. It gives you any rights that the Equality Act confers on the basis of sex but not on the basis of gender reassignment. A GRC stating you are a woman gives you all rights in the Equality Act reserved for women.
Since it became a topic of contention over the last few days, I thought I'd do a thread explaining some more detail on the law relating to single-sex toilets.
@ToniaAntoniazzi
was attacked for defending current Labour policy that reflects the law. More information below.
Nicola Sturgeon can't refuse to get into the details of whether a convicted rapist should be classed as a woman. She proposed law that would allow them to do so by self declaration and her party voted down all amendments seeking to add safeguards to prevent Self ID for rapists.
Asked again about the case of Isla Bryson and whether the transgender rapist should be considered a woman, Nicola Sturgeon says: "I think that rapist should be considered a rapist."
#FMQs
Yet another attempt to get me fired. No Ashley, the Good Law Project and Mermaids did not have good prospects in their challenge to the registration of LGB Alliance as a charity. If you clearly and obviously don’t have standing you don’t have good prospects.
Teresa did not make an innocent mistake of imprecise language. She has consistently claimed to have written the Equality Act in order to lend authority to her legally illiterate interpretation of it.
The screenshot here are very interesting and suggest that the claim of drafting the Equality act was being used as a means of attempting to give additional weight to views on the meaning of the legislation, despite that being legally irrelevant.
Zombie attacks are at an all time low. But non-attack zombie incidents are on the rise based on the self reporting of victims. The fear of zombie attacks is at an all time high. That is why my government has introduced new legislation to tackle the stirring up of zombies.
Ashley is welcome to make a formal complaint to my employer. I have not misrepresented anything. I read the judgment, made it clear that I was reading a translated version and have had native German speaking lawyers confirm that my initial reading was correct.
Anti-discrimination rights are rights. The Equality Act protects anti-discrimination rights on the basis of set grounds. Sex is one of them. There are sex-based rights to be free from sex-based discrimination. When did the left abandon that as if it’s some right wing position?
A commitment to inclusion needs to include all vulnerable or marginalised groups. Inclusive language that can only be understood by university educated middle class people who’s first language is English is not inclusive language.
Alecia Kearns may need a refresher in Article 11 of the ECHR which protects the right to freedom of association. The suggestion that
@JNHanvey
was saying that trans people do not exist or that they are lesser than LGB people merely by speaking of the LGB community is concerning.
Alicia Kearns's virtue signalling is interupted by Neale Hanvey, who talks about his differing views & being subject to horrific bullying
Ms Kearns angrily asserts "You DO NOT remove the T - u are suggesting trans people do not exist & trans ppl stood with gay ppl at Stonewall"
Scott Wortley is an expert in many areas of law. Parliamentary drafting is one. It’s an incredibly rare expertise to have. He’s a fantastic lawyer & a good man. Any attempt to get the EDI committee that he sits on to punish him for commenting on his area of expertise is shameful.
But we also know that a German court that looked at the historical record concluded that there isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that trans people were targeted when disambiguated from homosexuality, Judaism or another group that were unequivocally targeted.
“Here are 2 sex offenders that were sent to a women’s prison why did you intervene in one and not the other?”
“Well for one you didn’t notice so we got away with it but for the other there was backlash so we decided to intervene”
There is no way to justify that explanation.
I asked
@NicolaSturgeon
about Katie Dolatowski - a transgender woman with a record of sexual offences against girls who was sent to a women's prison last year:
Comparing single sex services to apartheid is grossly inappropriate and bordering on racist.
The Equality Act allows for separate provision on the basis of sex because sometimes that is needed to respect human rights. That is in no way comparable to apartheid.
So it is highly unlikely - bordering on absurd - to think JK Rowling committed a crime here. But do you know what does look like criminal harassment? This conduct by India:
I ignored this advice because I couldn't be bothered giving India the publicity he so clearly craves. Nevertheless, we must all do our bit to combat hate, so India will be glad to know I've taken note of his homophobia, racism, and humane stance on immigration. 2/5
Rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or pregnancy are sex-based rights. The right to associate with other members of your sex is a sex-based right. The right for female prisoners of war to be housed, shower, and change only with females is a sex-based right.
Sex-based rights don't exist & historically work to disadvantage women. Coopting a day to combat male violence against women & girls to falsely target trans people takes attention away from the real perpetrators: Abusive men. This won't help women suffering from male violence.
Not if they want to 1. Keep their job 2. Not be sued for unlawful discrimination.
Staff refusing to serve a black woman or a Muslim woman or a trans woman simply because she is black/Muslim/trans/a woman are engaged in unlawful discrimination. You don’t have a right to do that.
Robin is at it again. Notice the repeated appeals to authority and denigration of academic lawyers. Since we’re doing the “your arguments have never been tested in court” thing, I’d point to the s35 judgment decided yesterday, vindicating my analysis that Robin said was laughable
If you’re engaged in strategic litigation you know some of your cases have a low prospect of success. The issue is that Maugham is soliciting crowdfunding. He’s presenting every case as a winner and isn’t warning those donating when the prospects are low.
Robin Moira White very rarely engages with me on the substance of the law, usually preferring to just assert that I'm wrong and then make some ad hominem attack or say something about how academic lawyers shouldn't be trusted as experts on the law.
Its not transphobia to accurately describe the law. The court was clear in this case. There is no prima facie right to use opposite sex services without a GRC. Trans woman without GRCs are men in law and are subject to the same rules as non-trans men with regard to those services
Please don’t listen to this transphobe. Trans women are still protected under the gender reassignment characteristic of the Equality Act to use women’s spaces, unless there is a demonstrated proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, regardless if they have a GRC or not.
Now imagine if this school had students who could legally change sex and where disclosure of the fact of a students biological sex to teachers, pupils, or parents was a crime. Imagine school trips where students share rooms. This is a massive safeguarding issue.
I wrote about what happened when I complained about my son's school's dangerous and unlawful "transgender inclusion" policy. Lots more parents need to do this if we're to get the DfE to listen and produce proper official guidance
Still working through the judgment from the FWS appeal but first thing to note is that in my view this confirms that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would change the operation of the Equality Act and so would modify the law as it applied to reserved matters.
Notwithstanding the fact Prof Whittle would never make this argument defending venue refusing to serve a trans person simply bc staff refuse to serve a trans person, to even suggest that PREVENT is relevant, to insinuate
@joannaccherry
is a hate spreading extremist is just… wow
The only comment I’ll make on this article is to note that Robin has repeatedly claimed to abhor those who stoke the culture war flames. A barrister should know better than to skirt this close to prejudicing an ongoing investigation with culture war speculation unmoored from law
What fresh hell is this. ��It is not clear whether the fact that she was trans was a factor” - nevertheless, it was a tragedy waiting to happen due to the trans debate, and Rishi Sunak should now sack Nikki da Costa and allow the Scottish GRR to pass. Shameless.
India is not a lawyer and so can be forgiven for complete ignorance of human rights law. Although when you run your mouth about a topic by quote tweeting an expert after blocking them, maybe you should reign it in a bit.
The test for apparent bias is whether a reasonable and fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased in favour or against one party. That’s not an easy hurdle to cross but this question is surprising.
The sound is difficult - missed the OU Counsel's name.
Judge Young has asked both counsel for their pronouns.
She asked the solicitors to tell the Tribunal how they will manage the documents for the press and witnesses. There is a discussion on managing the 11 bundles.
A perfect example of how nuanced discussion of this issue gets shut down. I’ve had so much of this by now that it doesn’t sting anymore. I don’t know if the poster believes this or is just saying it to smear me. Obviously it’s not true. But that doesn’t matter, does it?
Finally, India has made some strange personal comments. I assume to impute my motives or my character. That has nothing to do with the law, which will remain what it is regardless of how much nasty people scream otherwise.
This means that it is permissible to exclude trans women from female only services if the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Protection the privacy, safety, and dignity of women is a legitimate aim.