Sandie Peggie Judgment Revised Over “Made-Up AI Quote”
Sandie Peggie’s tribunal judgment has been revised after allegations that a vital quote not present in the original source was “made up” using artificial intelligence. The Telegraph has more.
Monday’s judgment found that the veteran nurse who complained about sharing a female-only changing room with a transgender doctor had been harassed by NHS Fife.
The tribunal dismissed her allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation.
That meant that Judge Alexander Kemp ruled it was “not inherently unlawful” for a man to use a woman’s changing room, which appeared to contradict the Supreme Court’s decision on the definition of a woman earlier in the year.
The Supreme Court ruled that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act referred to biological sex.
However, Judge Kemp said there was “nothing stated specifically in the act itself” to say the protected characteristic of being a woman “takes precedence” over that of being a trans person.
To support his argument, he quoted a tribunal case involving Maya Forstater, the Chief Executive of sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, as concluding that: “It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”
However, Ms Forstater said the quote was “made up” and did not appear in her tribunal. She suggested that it had been produced using AI.
She added: “The source needs to be investigated and they need to ask Judge Kemp where it came from.”
She said he may have had a team of clerks working on the report and whether the judge, or one of his administrators, used AI should be investigated.
“We deserve an explanation and that might be one,” she added. …
The new version of the ruling was issued just after 2pm on Thursday.
The quote attributed to the Forstater tribunal case had been changed to: “This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA.
“Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.”
The Peggie ruling then added: “We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”
However, there was no explanation as to how the original quote was sourced. …
Dr Michael Foran, a gender law expert from Oxford University, said: “It is an incontrovertible fact that the judgment includes supposed quotes from specific judgments that do not appear in those judgments.
“That in itself is extraordinary. How this happened and what consequences will flow from it are unclear at this point, but there are incredibly serious questions that need to be answered.
“Additionally, it is not clear to me that the tribunal even has the power to reissue the judgment with these quotations removed. The power that permits reissuing judgments is confined to correcting clerical errors and accidental slips or omissions, not substantial changes of this magnitude.”
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The Telegraph has found a second ‘made up’ quote that doesn’t appear in the cited legal judgment, running on similar lines to the first.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Artificial Intelligence should be renamed Artificial Laziness.
Actual indolence…?
That’s cleared that up then.
I know. Clear as mud.🙄 It does make you wonder what trans people did prior to the arrival of woke and its subsequent, insidious creep into all organisations, taking root in the public conscience like a cancerous tumour. People used to just quietly get on with their lives and these issues we’re relentlessly hearing about just weren’t a thing years ago.
I don’t know if it’s just that with the arrival of the woke ideology came the activists: attention-seeking, entitled, misogynistic narcissists. This in no way describes genuine trans people ( of either sex ) who’ve always been with us and haven’t made a point of broadcasting their gender situation to all and sundry, such is the depth of their self-absorbtion and obsession with violating women’s boundaries.
Literally nobody gave a shit about people’s pronouns or ‘toiletgate’ 20 years ago.
The (Blair) Supreme Court made its judgement, it was not ambiguous.
This judge should be removed from whatever office it occupies and charged with contempt, and anything else that can be charged.
This whole sorry incident needs to come to an end and Sandie Peggy needs to be exonerated completely and due very substantial damages.
We shouldn’t be bothering with any of this nonsense in the first place.
A tiny number of cases of sex-dysphoria – a rounding error as a percentage of the population – have been treated in the NHS as psychiatric cases with subsequent medical/surgical treatment as appropriate, at least since the early 1970s in my experience but probably much longer.
Never was this a public issue, never was it a cat fight over pronouns and lavatories and changing rooms or involved criminal proceeding.
If there were any grown-ups in Government this crap would never have got traction as an issue blighting society in the first place, and certainly grown-ups would put a stop to it now.
I agree with you except that “cat fight” is usually used as a pejorative term when women argue.
These are men not women so perhaps “dog fight”?
Cock fight?
What?
This is just insane.
How did we get to the point where judges argue about the exact interpretation of sex?
“We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”
What…?
We laugh when we learn that in medieval times theologians argued about how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin.
We have no right to laugh.
We, supposedly enlightened and logical individuals, have now spent years arguing whether a man can turn into a woman by putting a dress on and we can be demonstrably prosecuted if we don’t go along with this nonsense.
I’m 58 years old and honestly, if anything convinces me that we are screwed, it’s this. This is beyond bizarre. Even the communists didn’t do this and boy, they were insane.
As I’m of a similar vintage, I find all this nonsense flabbergasting, WTAF, if a man puts on a dress and a wig, he is “in drag”, if that same men insists they are actually a real woman then that was always a sign to go get a straight jacket and a clutch of psychologists…. How times have changed…
As I understand it, the argument about angels and the head of a pin was only a metaphor for pointless debates. I got this from AI so it must be true. I rest my case, M’Lud.
Well, I’m a Christian and I do believe that angels exist. So my comment was not meant to be disrespectful to angels.
But as they are not bound by the same physical laws as we are, it is meaningless to try to work out how much physical space they take up.
Surely there has to be a judicial review of the case and the Tribunal Chairman must step down.
Oh dear. Oh deary, deary dear.
*If* this is investigated with the seriousness it should be, and *if* the outcome carries the weight it should do, then someone is in a lot of doo doo. Or should be – we are, after all, talking about Left captured institutions and public services…
What does gender critical and misgender even mean. Gender is assigned by your genes. Does that mean that people who believe they are cats or dogs are cats and dogs , species critical and misspecie ?
What of the fireman who lost his case over use of the words fireman and firewoman. Given these tribunals don’t even appear to know what a woman is.
Equality is not about fairness or protection or anything else it is claimed to be—–It is about revenge.
Does this mean that this judge invented (by AI) the precedent he relied upon? Isn’t precedent (the collected wisdom of judges over time) the basis of Common Law? If so, then does this not undermine our system of common law? Isn’t this quite important?
A belief should never ever be a protected characteristic, protected characteristics are factual certainties that can be independently ascertained, not claimed arbitrarily on little more than a whim. Look where religious beliefs have got us.