Latest news with #transrights
Daily Mail
16 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Boy George hits out AGAIN at JK Rowling and claims Harry Potter movies are 'nothing to do' with the author as he insists pair will NEVER agree in ongoing war over trans rights
Boy George has once again hit out at JK Rowling and insisted to Daily Mail that the pair will never agree or bury the hatchet amid their ongoing war over trans right. The culture club icon, 63, has expressed support for transgender people online, alongside other stars such as Tilda Swinton and Pedro Pascal, who earlier this year branded the Harry Potter author a 'heinous loser'. Now in his latest put down George, real name George Alan O'Dowd, praised the 'amazing' movie versions of the author's wizarding novels, before pointing out her 'lack of involvement' in the films, which were adapted by other screenwriters. Rowling, 59, has faced intense criticism from LGBTQ + activists and several stars of the Harry Potter films, including Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, after publicly expressing concerns about gender ideology and single-sex spaces. With her comments branded transphobic by some campaigners. He told Daily Mail: 'Do I love her films? Yes, her films are amazing. I love Harry Potter and I've read all the books, they're brilliant,' 'But remember she didn't make the films, a lot of brilliant people were in the films, like the actors, and everyone to do with it, it's just not about her'. He went to say how important it was to be 'be nice' claiming that the majority of those who are concerned about trans issues 'don't know anything about it'. 'JK Rowling doesn't know any trans people, I do. Since I was 16-years-old I've known trans people. I know people with trans kids,' 'And April Ashley – who was the first women to transition in this country. She died a couple of years ago, and I photographed her – she was amazing'. Before adding: 'Everyone that talks about the trans thing, isn't trans. JK Rowling isn't trans, does she even go to the toilet? '. He later went on to claim that he would happily choose Donald Trump over Rowling, despite the President's own controversial views on trans issues and his own 2006 conviction in New York. '[Me and Trump] share the same birthday. Ask me a question, Donald Trump, or JK Rowling, I'd pick Donald Trump any day'. George pleaded guilty to falsely reporting a burglary at his NYC apartment and was ordered to sweep rubbish from the streets for a week as part of his community service. He has now said that he has even been attempting to get a US visa, despite fellow LGBTQ+ celebs like Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres leaving to live in Europe. 'I love America though. I'm trying to get a visa, not the opposite. I don't want to not get a visa, you know what I mean? I love America'. He continued: 'I have to say, years ago when I got arrested in New York, and I had to sweep up, I kind of didn't want to go back, and my little mum – God rest her soul – she said, 'You love America, and they love you"'. Earlier this year Rowling engaged in a furious war of words with the Karma Chameleon frontman after he accused her of hating men following the Supreme Court 's ruling on the legal status of transgender women. Rowling, who also writes under the male pen name of Robert Galbraith, hit out the singer after he said that she could not tell the difference between a transgender woman and a biological man. Responding to a tweet suggesting that Marvel star Pedro Pascal - an outspoken supporter of trans rights - was a misogynist, the singer wrote: 'Stop this nonsense that if you don't agree with @jk_rowling you hate women. She hates men. This is where this truth lies. 'She cannot differentiate between a 'trans' woman and a biological male. Which is weird with her imagination?' But Rowling - who now tweets almost daily about what she has called 'sex-based rights' - fired back with an eye-rolling emoji and the retort: 'I do not hate men.' She wrote: 'I'm married to a man, George. I do not hate men. 'I simply live in reality where men - however they identify - commit 98 per cent of sexual assaults, and 88 per cent of victims are female. 'Trans-identified men are no less likely than other kinds of men to pose a risk to women or girls.' Boy George was responding to a tweet criticising Pedro Pascal. The actor (above) has been unequivocal in his support for transgender people (seen in the viral 'Protect the Dolls' t-shirt sold in support of trans rights) She did not elaborate on how many of those committing sexual assaults were thought to be trans. She then added: 'Accusing me of hating men because I don't think trans women should be given access to all women-only spaces does rather suggest that... you're well aware that these are, in fact, men.' Rowling has been vocal on the subject of trans people for several years; in 2018, a spokesperson explained that her 'like' of a tweet calling trans women 'men in dresses' had been a 'middle-aged moment'. And following the Supreme Court judgment on April 17, Rowling has consistently referred to transgender women as being 'men'. The ruling, on an appeal brought by campaign group For Women Scotland, concluded that the legal definition of a woman was that of a biological female, when interpreting the Equality Act.
BBC News
19 hours ago
- BBC News
What next for the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal?
For the past seven months a nondescript office building somewhere in Dundee has been the unlikely setting for one of the most high-profile legal cases in Britain.A clash between a trans doctor and a nurse in the changing room of a hospital in Fife has been played out and examined in great detail during an employment tribunal which has taken evidence across 20 than 15 witnesses have been called, and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on the legal the people involved, the tribunal was always going to be important, but levels of interest across the country and even around the world have been all the evidence is completed. What next? When will there be a verdict in the Sandie Peggie tribunal? The tribunal will resume on 1 September, for two days of oral submissions summarising both sides of the three person panel will then take time to consider a written ruling - a process that could take some Mitchell, a partner with the employment, pensions and immigration team of law firm Clyde & Co, told BBC Scotland News a decision would likely take months to reach. He said: "Eight weeks used to be the guideline for a decision, but there is no way a decision will be made within weeks – this will take months. "Whatever happens next, the findings of facts will be set in stone. Any appeal afterwards, which could in theory go all the way up to the Supreme Court, will involve poring over not just the facts, but also the way they have been expressed and if the law has been applied to the facts. "Any judge will want to get the decision spot-on." How is the employment tribunal decision reached? The panel's verdict will be reached via a plain majority, and judge Sandy Kemp has no extra privileges for his vote in the matter. Any ruling could either be fully or partly in favour of one side in the case, with a number of possible legal remedies for the losing party, from paying compensation to covering witness expenses. Should Ms Peggie win, the main remedy sought would likely be for injury to feelings - a specific remedy with guidelines known as the Vento Bands used to determine compensation start at £1,200 for less serious cases and rise to £60,700 for the most serious - but even those can be exceeded for "exceptional cases." Potentially both Dr Upton and NHS Fife could pay compensation if the ruling is in favour of Ms Peggie, though employment lawyer Mr Mitchell believed it would be more likely just the health board also said it was "relatively rare" for expenses to be awarded against the losing party and only if certain tests are met - relating to whether a party "acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably" during test applied would be if any claim had "no reasonable prospect of success". He said other cases - such as the Supreme Court ruling on gender - should not be expected to impact the tribunal ruling."The Supreme Court is another case, in another scenario entirely. People are thinking this decision will affect everyone, but what is found to have happened in these alleged incidents – they are only relevant to this case. "The judge has to rule on the balance of probabilities about what happened." What is the case about? The employment tribunal case was brought by Sandie Peggie, a nurse who has worked for the NHS for 30 was suspended after she complained about a trans woman using the female changing rooms in a Kirkcaldy hospital's A&E department. She claimed Dr Beth Upton, who is biologically male but now identifies as a woman, started to undress in front of her when they were alone in the room on Christmas Eve duo exchanged words, the content of which was disputed throughout the her evidence, Ms Peggie confirmed she called Dr Upton a man and said she believed the medic was a biological acknowledged that this would be considered harassment under NHS Fife's diversity and equality the incident Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment against the nurse, and Ms Peggie was suspended, pending an investigation, in January 2024. Ms Peggie claimed her experiences after the incident amounted to harassment and took legal action against the health board and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010. Dr Upton claimed to have previously witnessed other examples of Ms Peggie's behaviour before the Christmas Eve incident, including leaving a patient in a cubicle due to Dr Upton's presence - something vehemently denied by the Upton's legal team suggested these alleged other incidents pointed to bullying behaviour by Ms Peggie, who denied she had waged a "vindictive campaign" against the tribunal also heard hours of evidence about how NHS Fife carried out its investigation, with Ms Peggie's legal team attempting to show it was mishandled.A number of other medics gave evidence regarding whether confidentiality was broken by emails sent among staff discussing the case - including to possible witnesses to the internal back at the evidence which come before the tribunalThe incidents alleged by Dr Upton happened before the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities the Supreme Court ruling affects the tribunal's findings is uncertain, as NHS guidance at the time of the complaint was that trans men and women were allowed to use the changing rooms that aligned with their gender on both sides of the transgender debate - a heated issue that dominates social media platforms - have been drawn to the tribunal, including women's rights campaigners Sex Matters and the charity Scottish Trans. What happened with NHS Fife's disciplinary proceedings? Ms Peggie was cleared of gross misconduct following disciplinary proceedings by NHS Fife - a decision announced on 16 July, the same day the tribunal resumed after a five month pause in nurse had faced allegations of misconduct, failures of patient care and misgendering Dr Fife said an internal hearing found there was "insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct".NHS Fife confirmed no formal sanction had been imposed on the nurse and that the review panel decided a "facilitated reflective practice discussion" would be appropriate. Timeline of the Sandie Peggie tribunal How much has the tribunal cost? It was revealed earlier this year NHS Fife had spent nearly £220,500 defending itself - a number that will have escalated following the second round of evidence in Fife is only liable for the first £25,000 of the litigation costs, with the remaining money paid by a scheme set up to protect health the Clinical Negligence and Other Risks Indemnity Scheme, the Scottish government's health and social care directorate is initially responsible for costs above the £25,000 money is then recouped from member bodies in their annual contributions to the scheme which aims to ensure frontline clinical services are not is not known who is financially supporting Ms Peggie's case.A question by NHS Fife's legal team asking who is backing her was withdrawn, as it breached privilege laws.
The Guardian
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it
The supreme court judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow. It has ruled that men like me who have gender recognition certificates are defined as women in equality law, which applies to organisations ranging from workplaces to public services and sporting bodies. Vice versa for trans women. For context, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed after the European court of human rights ruled that the 'intermediate zone', between two sexes, in which trans people were then forced to exist was – and, crucially, remains – unlawful. Under the Gender Recognition Act, I am male 'for all purposes', but the supreme court decided this is not the case under the Equality Act. In effect, it is not the case in public. Having run what human rights organisations criticised as an unusually short six-week public consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will soon update its code of practice about how this legal interpretation of the Equality Act will be applied. This will then go to parliament to be approved by ministers, as things stand, with no opportunity for debate. Far from clarity, experts argue that the supreme court ruling has created legal uncertainty and contradiction and that the EHRC's response has been highly questionable. Rather than despair, as understandable as that would be, many trans people live in hope that their MPs are fair, ethical people, who have simply not had the opportunity to fully understand any of this. Which is why, late last month, roughly 900 people travelled from as far as Scotland and Cornwall to queue outside parliament in punishing heat to meet them in person. Many of those people were trans. Others were their loved ones, colleagues and allies. Westminster Hall and the lobby grew so busy that many never got inside. Those who hadn't managed to pre-book a meeting with their MP queued again in the hubbub to 'green card' their representative, an arcane system whereby a constituent requests their presence via a slip of green paper. Organisers were surprised by how many MPs spoke to, perhaps for the first time, someone who happened to be trans. Trans Solidarity Alliance's director, Jude Guaitamacchi, described the conversations in stark terms: 'It's 'Look me in the eye and tell me you're willing to destroy my life'.' This is known as a mass lobby, a direct and old-fashioned tactic for getting MPs' attention. What choice do trans people have at this point? Over the past 10 years, their rights have been chipped away in Britain, their lives made increasingly difficult by anti-trans lobbyists with more influential connections and far more money. Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed. For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling. Things were so different in 2016. When North Carolina passed a shocking 'bathroom bill' banning trans people from using the correct bathroom, the Labour MP Ruth Cadbury told the Commons that 'a bathroom bill would never be passed here in the UK'. In the same debate, the Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage welcomed a new NHS policy prescribing cross-sex hormones to young gender-variant people, acknowledging this was 'consistent with international guidelines', a description that, were it not for well-documented lobbying, would hold today. Maria Miller, a former Conservative MP, cited fairer treatment of trans prisoners as progress 'on which Britain leads the way'. Concluding, she said: 'Better protecting trans people does not mean diminishing the protections in place for women. It is not a zero-sum game and we should not allow those who attempt to paint it as such, and who try to undermine the position and legitimate rights of trans people, to succeed.' What on earth has happened? Today, any MP who dared say that protecting trans people and protecting women go hand in hand would incur the wrath of politicians and commentators from the right to the centre left. Perhaps current Labour ministers privately justify the state's capitulation to the anti-trans lobby as political expediency. Perhaps they did the same when branding many peaceful protesters against genocide as terrorists. This government is making decision after decision that betrays its own principles and those of its actual voters, who will not be fooled again. It's cold comfort that trans people are not alone in being thrown under the bus by a PM who promised an end to culture wars. Maybe the growing number of MPs who feel betrayed by their leaders are reason for hope. They must find the courage to defend their trans constituents, too. Whether they cite the UK's vertiginous slide down European LGBTQ+ rights rankings, the Council of Europe being asked to investigate the proposed implementation of the ruling or the contents of the more than 50,000 responses to the EHRC's public consultation on its code of practice, they will not lack for evidence to back them up. MPs who attended the mass lobby probably learned alarming things about what the EHRC's code of practice might look like, based on the interim guidance it released in April, which is being challenged in the high cout by the Good Law project. They might have heard from the news or comment pages that women who are trans may be banned from women's loos and shelters. What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC's interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she's legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there. Perhaps you're just learning this, too. If so, pause a moment longer to consider what this would mean. This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are. It not only takes away trans peoples' right to define themselves in relation to their families and friends, but the freedom of those families and friends too. Does someone married to a trans woman no longer have a wife? Does the mother of a trans son, against her better knowledge, now have a daughter? What does this say about the courts' and government's readiness to curtail the freedoms of other minorities that, through no fault of their own, become politically inconvenient? The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety, whatever your identity, however you present, whatever your beliefs. The decade-long campaign against trans people is not about anyone's safety. It is exactly what it looks like: an organised effort to drive a tiny minority from public life, back into the closet. Do not let yourselves be fooled. MPs, consider what has changed since 2016 (hint: it isn't trans people), listen to what you heard at the mass lobby, heed the 100,000 who marched for London trans pride last weekend. The EHRC's proposals must be properly challenged and debated. This is a litmus test for the country's soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead. Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Fox News
20 hours ago
- Sport
- Fox News
Former SJSU volleyball star Brooke Slusser opens up on investigation into trans teammate's alleged plot to harm her
Former San Jose State volleyball co-captain Brooke Slusser made new allegations regarding a controversy involving a trans teammate, and described the emotional fallout of the situation.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it
The supreme court judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow. It has ruled that men like me who have gender recognition certificates are defined as women in equality law, which applies to organisations ranging from workplaces to public services and sporting bodies. Vice versa for trans women. For context, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed after the European court of human rights ruled that the 'intermediate zone', between two sexes, in which trans people were then forced to exist was – and, crucially, remains – unlawful. Under the Gender Recognition Act, I am male 'for all purposes', but the supreme court decided this is not the case under the Equality Act. In effect, it is not the case in public. Having run what human rights organisations criticised as an unusually short six-week public consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will soon update its code of practice about how this legal interpretation of the Equality Act will be applied. This will then go to parliament to be approved by ministers, as things stand, with no opportunity for debate. Far from clarity, experts argue that the supreme court ruling has created legal uncertainty and contradiction and that the EHRC's response has been highly questionable. Rather than despair, as understandable as that would be, many trans people live in hope that their MPs are fair, ethical people, who have simply not had the opportunity to fully understand any of this. Which is why, late last month, roughly 900 people travelled from as far as Scotland and Cornwall to queue outside parliament in punishing heat to meet them in person. Many of those people were trans. Others were their loved ones, colleagues and allies. Westminster Hall and the lobby grew so busy that many never got inside. Those who hadn't managed to pre-book a meeting with their MP queued again in the hubbub to 'green card' their representative, an arcane system whereby a constituent requests their presence via a slip of green paper. Organisers were surprised by how many MPs spoke to, perhaps for the first time, someone who happened to be trans. Trans Solidarity Alliance's director, Jude Guaitamacchi, described the conversations in stark terms: 'It's 'Look me in the eye and tell me you're willing to destroy my life'.' This is known as a mass lobby, a direct and old-fashioned tactic for getting MPs' attention. What choice do trans people have at this point? Over the past 10 years, their rights have been chipped away in Britain, their lives made increasingly difficult by anti-trans lobbyists with more influential connections and far more money. Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed. For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling. Things were so different in 2016. When North Carolina passed a shocking 'bathroom bill' banning trans people from using the correct bathroom, the Labour MP Ruth Cadbury told the Commons that 'a bathroom bill would never be passed here in the UK'. In the same debate, the Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage welcomed a new NHS policy prescribing cross-sex hormones to young gender-variant people, acknowledging this was 'consistent with international guidelines', a description that, were it not for well-documented lobbying, would hold today. Maria Miller, a former Conservative MP, cited fairer treatment of trans prisoners as progress 'on which Britain leads the way'. Concluding, she said: 'Better protecting trans people does not mean diminishing the protections in place for women. It is not a zero-sum game and we should not allow those who attempt to paint it as such, and who try to undermine the position and legitimate rights of trans people, to succeed.' What on earth has happened? Today, any MP who dared say that protecting trans people and protecting women go hand in hand would incur the wrath of politicians and commentators from the right to the centre left. Perhaps current Labour ministers privately justify the state's capitulation to the anti-trans lobby as political expediency. Perhaps they did the same when branding many peaceful protesters against genocide as terrorists. This government is making decision after decision that betrays its own principles and those of its actual voters, who will not be fooled again. It's cold comfort that trans people are not alone in being thrown under the bus by a PM who promised an end to culture wars. Maybe the growing number of MPs who feel betrayed by their leaders are reason for hope. They must find the courage to defend their trans constituents, too. Whether they cite the UK's vertiginous slide down European LGBTQ+ rights rankings, the Council of Europe being asked to investigate the proposed implementation of the ruling or the contents of the more than 50,000 responses to the EHRC's public consultation on its code of practice, they will not lack for evidence to back them up. MPs who attended the mass lobby probably learned alarming things about what the EHRC's code of practice might look like, based on the interim guidance it released in April, which is being challenged in the high cout by the Good Law project. They might have heard from the news or comment pages that women who are trans may be banned from women's loos and shelters. What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC's interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she's legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there. Perhaps you're just learning this, too. If so, pause a moment longer to consider what this would mean. This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are. It not only takes away trans peoples' right to define themselves in relation to their families and friends, but the freedom of those families and friends too. Does someone married to a trans woman no longer have a wife? Does the mother of a trans son, against her better knowledge, now have a daughter? What does this say about the courts' and government's readiness to curtail the freedoms of other minorities that, through no fault of their own, become politically inconvenient? The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety, whatever your identity, however you present, whatever your beliefs. The decade-long campaign against trans people is not about anyone's safety. It is exactly what it looks like: an organised effort to drive a tiny minority from public life, back into the closet. Do not let yourselves be fooled. MPs, consider what has changed since 2016 (hint: it isn't trans people), listen to what you heard at the mass lobby, heed the 100,000 who marched for London trans pride last weekend. The EHRC's proposals must be properly challenged and debated. This is a litmus test for the country's soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead. Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist
