Fascinating tweets about JY’s waxing case. Read here. (Thread title edited by MNHQ)

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Court Of Hurty Feels is held to the same evidential standards as the actual courts.

If people are sworn in before giving evidence, shouldn’t that mean they commit some form of offence if they lie? Or is the fact that JY is contradicting JYself simply irrelevant because proving one or the other would be a violation of JY’s privacy either way?

Wish my legal knowledge didn’t just come from watching The Good Fight...

...you’re either a trans “girl”, or you have had your period since you were a teen, pick one.

Very succinctly put.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Court Of Hurty Feels is held to the same evidential standards as the actual courts.

Frequent lurker popping in to say how utterly disturbing these cases are. It’s been clear JY had problematic tendencies (don’t want to get banned for saying what I really think) since those screenshots came out where JY discussed 10 year olds’ tampon strings, and this just makes it even clearer, fucking hell. Those poor, poor women.

How is the lawyer not going after JY for perjury - you’re either a trans “girl”, or you have had your period since you were a teen, pick one.

If a fundamental part of the case is JY's sex and what reproductive organs JY may or may not have, then why can that not be ordered to be verified by a doctor and entered into the record?

I've wondered about this too.

Oh lord, I'm catching up on the tweets by @goinglikeelsie First of all, she is a bloody hero and now she's being threatened & abused by JY's parent.

JY's parent (PY in the tweets) seems to be even more unwell than JY - is it a case of Munchhausen's by proxy?

Neither of them appear to be particularly bright, and JY is contradicting themselves - which is (as PP have said) perjury, surely?

I am also dismayed by the information about the Member (presiding over the tribunal). I thought, from the tweets, that the Member was trying quite hard to be fair to both parties, and stopping JY's excesses and rants.

I still hold to my belief that this is the Member giving JY enough rope ... I'm nothing if not an optimist.

ahumanfemale
Sorry just noticed your message. The video was by Lindsay Sheppard about her twitter ban. I wasn't sure if MN would delete it as she mentioned JY by their name. I wonder what went on behind the scenes to make her remove it?

The absolute idiots who couldn't see this coming, are the ones to blame.

If you read the Hansard reports from the UK HoL and HoC debates much of this was anticipated and was waved away by invested Labour Peers and MPs on the premise that the GRA 2004 would apply to only about 5000 individuals:

House of Lords: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/feb/03/gender-recognition-bill-hl

House of Commons: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

More: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/6

There was discussion up thread of sending some love to the poor ladies at the centre of all this, so for those that missed it I'm just revisiting the topic.

Yesterday I bought some lovely National Trust gardens cards and wrote one for BH and for SG (cases one and two). I'm waiting for reports from the third cases to do her card.

Mindful of someone who suggested sending postcards rather than cards in envelopes for reasons of checking the content, I will be leaving the envelopes unsealed. And posting them all together to JCCF with a request to pass them on.

arranbubonicplague that all seems to much like hard work for me

Twitter Canada: could be titled, How to Put Paid to All Interaction With Others Who Exist Outside Your Bubble

twitter.com/TwitterCanada/status/1151547186636906498

We’re currently testing a feature where people in Canada will be able to hide replies to their Tweets. Hidden replies will be hidden for everyone around the world.

Everyone can still access hidden replies through the hidden reply icon, which shows up on the original Tweet when there are hidden replies. Additionally, the Tweet author can unhide a reply at any time. When a Tweet author hides a reply, the author of the reply will not be notified.

help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/mentions-and-replies#hidden-reply

Thank you Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g and Oncewasblueandyellowtwo

Some of the tribunal transcript makes this case seem absurd and it's a worry that the wider media might not take it seriously even if they do choose to cover it.

While a loud caricature is banging on the front door demanding their 'rights' the darker, insidious creatures are creeping through the back door

Whatthewaters - so shocking when it's all laid out like that.

JY has shown that JY is extremely misogynistic and racist - by ther own words - and from I've read in the trial, an extremely unreliable, evasive, and get v indulged witness.

I'm horrified, quite frankly.

Jux, I don't know if it's an official mumsnet rule, and I'm sure the court in Canada has no power over what is said here, but it puts Elsie in a more difficult position if her thread is used by another well known site to name jy.

JY is simultaneously claiming to be trans and claiming they have female sex organs and that they menstruate.

In which case they would be a transman, ffs.

This is why it's so dangerous.

Here, you can get a GRC, and be a completely intact man. And no-one can say so. Because it's 'outing', and the entire issue in the first place was so that people had a 'private life'. Ie other people didn't have to know what sex they were.

The absolute idiots who couldn't see this coming, are the ones to blame.

They probably wouldn't even need a new medical examination. Anyone's medical notes and original birth certificate would usually be clear on the patient's sex, and would definitely include info on a dsd. And if there has been any medical transition that dr would be able to say one way or another.

I realise we are using initials out of respect for the ruling, but does it actually apply here? Obvs we wouldn't use the name on elsie's twitter either, but why are we bound here on MN in the UK?

If a fundamental part of the case is JY's sex and what reproductive organs JY may or may not have, then why can that not be ordered to be verified by a doctor and entered into the record? It's a vital part of the case, there has been contradictory information presented to the tribunal by JY, his parent and the defense. JY is simultaneously claiming to be trans and claiming they have female sex organs and that they menstruate. JY communicated with the beautician telling her that they had a dick 'n' balls and we have screenshots of JY asking women how to help 10 year old girls insert tampons. Getting this clarified properly surely has to be vital in reaching a verdict.

I'm also very concerned that the tribunal seems to be giving JY huge leeway as a person from a protected group but seemingly doesn't give a shit about the defendants who are:

-Female
-From an ethnic minority
-From a conservative religious community
-Working class
-Immigrants
-Poor English skills
-One with special needs.

They are having their lives ruined, being dragged in front of this kangaroo court. JY is using this tribunal to sexually and racially harrass them.

AppleJane

Yes I hope Goinglikeelsie knows about this place and knows she's not alone.

AppleJane

Completely agree about Elsie. She is a .

I've hidden the names (not initials) and face so I hope this is ok, but did anybody else see this? The AUDACITY to ask penis-havers (who may be trans, why is JY discriminating here?) to put them away because JY doesn't want to see them, is astounding.

I hope it gets used today in the tribunal to show that if JY is female, not trans, then a) there was no trans discrimination and b) JY does not want to see penises but expects women who have good reason (a male name) to believe JY has one to actually handle it!

FFS!!

I do hope sincerely that the member is doing every possible thing to be overly sympathetic and kind and indulgent to the interesting person laying these complaints before finding against them: therefore trying to prove that the court cannot be called 'transphobic' (vain hope) or subjected to endless appeals.

But we live in very strange times. In which case the women's legal representatives will have a lot of stuff on a plate to take to the federal court, and it's going to be very embarrassing to the Canadian Govt. Who frankly deserve it.

JY must be committing perjury? JY statements in court contradict each other eg. Trans vs periods. One must be a lie. Why is the ‘member’ allowing such mistreatment of the tribunal?