Latest news with #PatrickHodge
Metro
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Metro
Major UK Pride parades ban political parties from marching
Political parties have been banned from marching with LGBTQ+ people at four of the UK's largest Pride parades across the summer. Birmingham, Brighton, London and Manchester Pride organisers announced the ban yesterday, saying they are standing 'in solidarity' with trans people who have been 'abandoned'. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the definition of woman in equality law is based on 'biological sex'. Days later, Downing Street confirmed Prime Minister Keir Starmer does not believe trans women are women. The Pride groups, which include Pride in London, the largest Pride march in the UK, said they are refusing to 'platform those who have not protected our rights'. The four said: 'The recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court to exclude trans women from the definition of the term 'woman' underscores the urgent need for immediate action. 'In this moment, we choose to stand firmer, louder, and prouder in demanding change that protects and uplifts trans lives. With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community. Simply click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! Don't forget to turn on notifications! 'That is why this year, we are collectively suspending political party participation in our Pride events.' The Pride organisers said the ruling was the latest in a 'disturbing global trend' of trans rights being rolled back. They pointed to Hungary banning LGBTQ+ Pride events and the wave of US states outlawing trans youth healthcare and banning trans young people from playing sports as a warning to the UK. The four said: 'The UK must not follow this path of regression. Instead, it must rise as a global leader in human rights and equality.' Organisers added: 'We demand real commitments and measurable progress. The Pride movement was born from protest, and we must continue to embody that spirit with intention and urgency. 'The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex.' This is what Lord Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the court, said when announcing the ruling in April. The court was deciding whether trans people can be included under the protected characteristic of 'sex' as well as for 'gender reassignment' under the 2010 Equality Act. But judges said that the word 'sex' means 'biological sex', as in what people are assigned at birth. Lord Hodge stressed that the judgment is not a 'triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another', as trans people would continue to have protections against discrimination. Some sports associations, police forces and political buildings say they will treat trans women differently from women in response to the ruling, such as by banning trans women from using single-sex spaces. While others, such as LGBTQ+ venues, have vowed to defy the ruling. 'To move forward, we need more than promises. 'We need every political party to stand unequivocally with every member of the LGBTQ+ community, and to centre the voices of trans people in policy, practice, and public life.' Sir Keir, former Conservative leader Boris Johnson, Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey and Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party, have all marched in Pride parades. LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the party's queer member wing, said the group 'firmly believes that Pride is a protest'. It said: 'While we understand Pride organisers' frustrations with Labour and the Conservatives' swithering on LGBT+ and especially trans+ rights of late, we are sickened to our core to be lumped together with them in a blanket suspension on political parties attending major Prides this year. The statement added: 'We look forward to a constructive dialogue with Pride organisers so we can come back bigger and better, while those parties who pander to bigotry and hatred can be left in the past where they belong.' The UK was ranked the most LGBTQ+-friendly place in Europe in 2015 on the annual Rainbow Map. Now it is 16th out of 49. The mapmakers, ILGA Europe, said last year that the NHS restricting healthcare options for trans youth and spiralling transphobic hate crime rates are among the reasons why the UK has tumbled. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Sycamore Gap pair quizzed over homophobic attack days before tree was felled MORE: Bimini: Trans people in public toilets aren't your enemies – they're victims MORE: 'I was put through gay conversion therapy – here's how it changed my life forever'
Daily Mail
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
TOM UTLEY: It's ironic but my abject failure to match my father's stellar university career set me up for life...
One of my late father's proudest moments came in 1942, when the Cambridge authorities posted the results of the history finals exams, known as the Tripos, on the notice boards outside the university's Senate House. Although he had been totally blind since he was nine, which meant he depended on Braille and having books read aloud to him, his name was right at the very top of the rankings. With a stunning starred double-first, he had outshone every other student of history in his year. He was quietly proud of this for the rest of his life. But there will be no such moment of glory for any similarly brilliant Cambridge students in future. This month, it emerged that the university authorities have gone one step further than their decision in 2021 to abolish the 300-year-old practice of posting exam results on the Senate House notice boards, for all to see. They've decided that in future they will stop telling students, even in private, anything at all about their position in the rankings. As they explain it, the idea is to promote a 'healthy work-life balance' on campus and discourage a 'culture of overwork', which they say is having a negative impact on – you guessed it – undergraduates' 'mental health'. Glittering The decision means that from the next academic year onwards, those who excel will never know the full extent of their achievement. Nor will they experience that special satisfaction, felt by my father until his dying day, of knowing they were the brightest of the bright in their youth. Of course, it will also mean that those who perform badly will be spared the heavy blow to their self-esteem of coming deep in the bottom half of the rankings, well beneath friends and contemporaries. On that point, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Indeed, if you had visited Cambridge in 1975, three decades after my father's glittering achievement, you would have had to read a long way down the history Tripos rankings on the Senate House notice board before you reached my own name. Reader, I blush to admit that I earned a dismal 2:2, the lowest score in my year among history students at Corpus Christi, the college that had also been my father's. Had you raised your eyes to the top of the list, incidentally, you would have seen the name of my old friend Patrick Hodge. You know the one. He is now Lord Hodge, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, who shot to nationwide fame the other day by proving himself able to tell the difference between a man and a woman. Strictly between you and me, I'm not sure that most of us really needed a panel of judges, with double-first-class minds, to help us distinguish between the sexes. But I suppose we should all be grateful to Patrick and his colleagues for clearing up our poor, befuddled Prime Minister's confusion. Brightest I'm straying a little from my point this week, which is that we can't just wish away differences in intelligence, aptitude for certain tasks, capacity for hard work, biological sex or anything else, simply by pretending they don't exist. The fact is that we are all different, and league tables of every sort are an invaluable aid to employers, policy-makers, parents seeking the best schools for their young, patients looking for the safest hospitals, and all kinds of other people, to help us distinguish between the wheat and the chaff. Nowhere is this more true than in the academic world, where those who believe that all should have prizes have been dishing out top grades like Smarties, ever since the great dumbing-down of GCSEs, university degrees and other qualifications began in earnest under John Major and Tony Blair. This is not only unfair to the brightest and most hard-working students, who these days find themselves given the same grades as the idle duds. It's unjust, too, to those who have little aptitude for academic work, but are given a false sense of their talents and employability. Indeed, you have only to watch quiz programmes such as Tipping Point or The Chase to realise there are many in our universities these days who are quite unsuited to higher education. I'm thinking of geography students who believe the River Amazon is in Africa, or students of history who think Julius Caesar was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo. No wonder so many leave universities these days, with nothing to show for their time there apart from mountainous student debts and a job at McDonald's or Starbucks, flipping burgers or peddling undrinkable coffee. Aren't examiners quite as likely to harm mental health by raising false expectations, through inflating grades and blurring the distinction between the mediocre and the best, than they would be by giving students an honest assessment of their performance in relation to others? Meanwhile, shouldn't they also spare a thought for employers? In this world of cut-throat competition, after all, how are businesses supposed to choose between dozens of candidates, if they all have exactly the same qualifications with nothing to separate the whizz-kids from the wallies? Yes, I know that league-table rankings are far from an infallible guide to the worth of an individual or an institution. But if they are rigorously compiled, allowing for fair comparisons, at least they give some indication of relative strengths and weaknesses – whether of job candidates, schools, hospitals, education systems, pubs, restaurants, investment funds, airlines or anything else you may care to mention. Of course, Cambridge is acting from the kindest of motives, hoping to avoid upsetting the snowflakes among today's young, who seem to go into meltdown at the slightest suggestion of stress. But abolishing rankings altogether does no favours to anyone. As for me, I somehow survived the humiliation of that public display of my 2:2 degree on the Senate House notice board. I didn't take to my bed for the rest of the year, wailing about the damage to my mental health. Shame After a pint or two to drown my shame, in fact, I simply resolved to make the best of it, telling myself I'd got no worse than I deserved. Ah, well, perhaps in those days we were just made of sterner stuff than today's lot. But here's a remarkable thing. The following year, after I'd successfully applied to join a graduate editorial training scheme in the West Country, I asked the training manager how on earth he had set about whittling down the 1,200 candidates for the available places, of which there were only 12. He told me the first thing he did was bin applications from all graduates with first-class degrees, believing they were too intellectual to write simply about the sort of stories that interested ordinary readers. As it happens, I think this was pure rubbish, and it wasn't true even in those far-off days when only a tiny proportion of the student population won firsts. But I wasn't complaining. For it meant that my failure to match anything like my father's achievement had kept me in the running for a career that has looked after me very nicely throughout the half century since. The moral for others who score disappointing exam results? Cheer up. You never know your luck.
The Sun
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Straight, white, middle-aged blokes are vilified & blamed for all the world's problems – but now we all owe them thanks
IT turns out that straight, white, middle-aged blokes aren't so bad after all. For years, they've been caught in the middle of the destructive culture wars; the PSM (pale, stale male) vilified and blamed for all wrongdoing in the world. The last acceptable group left to lampoon. 8 8 How ironic, then, it's this under-threat species women have to thank for protecting, well, womenkind. The Supreme Court, one largely governed by the breed, came good in its verdict last week. A supremely balanced ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law was delivered by Lord Patrick Hodge, a 71-year-old grey-haired, dad of two. Peak PSM. He told the court: 'We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.' He added the legislation gives transgender people 'protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender'. Yet this fact, the assertion trans people be treated with dignity and kindness, appears to be entirely lost by those protesting at the verdict. Thousands, waving pretty pale pink and baby blue trans pride flags and less pretty sweary banners, were angry. Very, very angry. Activists defaced a statue of the suffragist Millicent Fawcett, and at least six other statues were vandalised. Little angers decent, law-abiding British people more than oiks trying to spoil our history and culture. These minority protesters are doing a gross disservice to the majority of decent, kind, normal trans people — ones who simply wish to live their lives quietly and peacefully. The ones who don't want to stand out or draw attention to themselves. Instead of further stoking the hostile fires of identity politics, the trans and non-trans communities should be channelling frustrations and anger elsewhere; putting effort into finding solutions, not more problems. Organising sports leagues and competitions, shelters and public spaces for those who need them, perhaps. But another crucial take-away from this ruling, one overlooked by many celebrating it, is some women will be hurt by it. Something rampant feminists and protesting trans extremists seem to be forgetting. This obsession with genitals, not helped by the PM's refusal to comment either way, could come at a cost to those this ruling was implemented to protect. Come at a cost What about women with PCOS? Those with excess testosterone, or big frames and large hands? Those with short hair or, in the case of those undergoing chemotherapy, no hair? Will women, those more stereotypically masculine in appearance, be made to show passports every time they have a wee in a Nando's? The nuanced reality, then, is as Lord Hodge said. This isn't a win for any given group. It is something that must be further explored and navigated sensitively. And that does not involve trashing statues. POSH WINS IN WHITE 8 8 VICTORIA BECKHAM's decision to copy an outfit previously worn by her fractious daughter-in-law for her 51st birthday was a PR masterstroke. While no one on Team DVB will ever officially comment on the stunt, Victoria has been in the fame game for almost 30 years – the very age of Brooklyn's wife, Nicola Peltz. Posh and Becks' very public (alleged) falling-out with their beloved eldest son is being played out on Instagram – a medium that can make or break celebs. Victoria knows EXACTLY what she is doing. Wearing the same outfit as another woman, especially one 21 years your junior, is usually sartorial death. But Victoria – who has not touched a carb since 1998, trains five times a week and whose pert boobs are not unfamiliar with the surgeon's knife – looked every bit as good as Nicola in the matching white corset and trousers. And she knows it. 1-0 VB. DOGS' DIRTY SECRET MUCH can be told about a person by the way they interact with animals. Are you, for example, the kind of human who nods and smiles at a dog, rather than the owner, on a walk? If so, you're my kind of person. It turns out Marina Fogle – wife of Ben – is also my kind of person. In an interview with The Times last week, she waxed lyrical about the benefits of kids growing up in muddy, mucky, furry, pet-infested homes. 'Don't call my dogs filthy,' she implored. 'They're gut microbiome enhancers! 'Life is enhanced by animals. 'Whether it's the cultivation of bacteria that colonises our guts and boosts our immune systems, or the good vibes that come from living with a being that is generous with love and light on judgment, I'm not sure.' Quite! Nothing irritates me more than a young mum hysterical with fear about their indulged, Boden-wearing sprog petting a creature. When I was a toddler, my mother was fastidious about sterilising my bottles and scrubbing my grubby little paws clean. Until, that is, she found me sitting in the garden, digging up the dog's bone and merrily gnawing on its remains. From then on, Doris the cocker spaniel and I shared our bones. Today I have the constitution of an ox. Go figure. AJ MORE BIG BABY THAN BIG BROTHER 8 8 FIERCE debate online over the weekend after AJ Odudu, a beautiful woman, inexplicably agreed to be dressed on national television in a beige nappy. 'AJ Odudu looks like she's done a big poo-poo,' observed one poet, while another added: 'Why is AJ wearing a giant adult nappy – who styled her in this monstrosity?' Still, after being veritably eye-groped by sleazy misogynist Mickey Rourke, it's one way of avoiding the male gaze . . . Chris Hughes and JoJo Siwa dressed as cats, took it in turns to p*** in a giant cat litter tray. 8 In words I didn't expect to write of a clement Easter Monday, the duo went all 'method' and urinated in front of the cameras despite being yards from a human lav. CBB producers have a feline fetish. The stunt – blasted by viewers as 'vile' and 'horrific' – comes 18 years after former MP George Galloway pretended to be a cat and lapped milk from Rula Lenska's palms. What a world, eh?
Express Tribune
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
UK SC backs 'biological' definition of woman
Britain's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of a "woman" is based on a person's sex at birth, a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the bitter debate over trans rights. In a win for Scottish gender-critical campaigners who brought the case to the UK's highest court, five London judges unanimously ruled that "the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman, and biological sex". However, the act also "gives transgender people protection" against discrimination in their acquired gender, Justice Patrick Hodge said in handing down the verdict. The UK government welcomed the ruling for bringing "clarity" to the debate. It is the culmination of a years-long battle between the Scottish government and the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) -- which launched an appeal to the Supreme Court after losing pleas in Scottish courts over an obscure legislation aimed at hiring more women in public-sector bodies. Dozens of FWS and other gender-critical campaigners, who argue that biological sex cannot be changed, cheered the ruling, hugging and crying outside the court. "This has been a really, really long ride," said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland. "Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex," she said. "Women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women". The Scottish government said it accepts the verdict and would focus on "protecting the rights of all". Trans rights activists had raised concerns that a ruling in favour of FWS could risk discrimination against trans people in their chosen gender. "The court is well aware of the strength of feeling on all sides which lies behind this appeal," Hodge said. Scottish Greens activist and trans woman Ellie Gomersall, 25, told Sky News the ruling was "yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace". But "Harry Potter" author JK Rowling, one of the most prominent supporters of gender-critical campaigns, praised the "three tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them" who refused to drop the case. "In winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK," Rowling, who has been accused of transphobia and become a target of hate, posted on X. At the heart of the legal battle were clashing interpretations of the Equality Act. While the Scottish government argued that the Equality Act gave trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) the same protections as a biological female, FWS disagreed. In its judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the devolved Scottish government's "interpretation is not correct" and that the Equality Act was inconsistent with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act that introduced GRC certificates. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is responsible for enforcing the Equality Act, said it was "pleased" the ruling addressed complicated issues of maintaining single-sex spaces. Single-sex spaces and services including changing rooms, hostels and medical services "will function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex", the judgement said.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.K. high court excludes trans women from legal definition of ‘woman'
In a ruling that could have sweeping implications for trans people in the United Kingdom, that country's Supreme Court said that transgender women are not legally defined as 'women' under equality law. All five judges on the high court concurred in a Wednesday decision that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' under the U.K.'s equality legislation 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex,' Judge Lord Patrick Hodge said, reading the judgment. The ruling is a blow to the Scottish government, which was taken to court by an anti-trans women's group, For Women Scotland (FWS), over a 2018 Scottish law that includes trans women in its mandate for 50% female representation on government agency boards. The group's challenge was struck down by a court in 2022, but it subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court. All five judges noted that their decision applied only to the language in the U.K.'s 2010 Equality Act and was not a broader judgment on whether trans women are women. The ruling, Hodge said in his remarks Wednesday, is not 'a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.' The high court faced criticism for refusing to allow trans women to participate in hearings, The Guardian reported. Supporters of FWS — including notorious transphobe 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling — hailed the ruling as a victory. Trans rights advocates and the Scottish government lamented the decision; in a statement, Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK — which argued alongside the Scottish government in court — said there are 'potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.' The ruling could have wide-ranging effects on how single-sex services, including domestic violence shelters and hospital wards, are run. The case also tracks with efforts in the U.S. to restrict protections and rights for trans people, many of which have stemmed from federal and state governments led by Republicans. This article was originally published on
