Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'

58 replies

donquixotedelamancha · 14/10/2019 22:02

Apologies if I am duplicate posting, I can't seem to see a thread on this.

I've put the title in quotes because it's from Stephanie Hayden, so is quite possibly untrue. Here is the text of her tweet:

If #Mumsnet are only interested in "free speech" then many of you will find it odd that MumsnetTowers towers are intending to argue in court that #transgender women holding a GRC (legally of the female sex) do not hold the protected characteristic of the sex of a woman.

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1183047304976257025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
TemporaryPermanent · 14/10/2019 23:10

Suggests there is a court case pending.

@MNHQ just flagging in case you wish to comment, which you may not even be able to I guess.

CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost · 14/10/2019 22:59

What rubbish.

LexMitior · 14/10/2019 22:31

People like this have the minds of children. They imagine the court system is going to send a lightning bolt down to smite their enemies,

You can always tell those people who are high on the “justicezone” theory of law. They are odd. Nothing you say will dissuade then from their deluded arguments.

Even when they lose, they claim victory. They are actually to be pitied in some level.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 14/10/2019 22:28

Let's say in theory this was actually a thing that was happening. Would that statement not mean essentially "these people who say that they're interested in free speech actually intend to use that free speech to say things I don't like, how dare they"?

AncientLights · 14/10/2019 22:22

I don't see why MN would even have a view on it. And who does Flying Lawyer mean by Mumsnet anyway? Justine? Us? More Flying Lawyer bluster. Do give over, there's a dear.

Aspley · 14/10/2019 22:20

Just bluster to keep the perpetually offended thinking that this forum is more interesting than it actually is.

Original poster
donquixotedelamancha · 14/10/2019 22:12

It’s just bait for the minds of children.

That was my perception. I presume that SH has made some nonsense claim of sex discrimination and just made up the rest from there.

OP posts:
LexMitior · 14/10/2019 22:09

Well there’s nothing there, is there.

Intending to argue?

That means nothing has happened yet. Or has possibly been even considered, by parties unknown, on a website of thousands of posters.

It’s just bait for the minds of children.

There’s no legal argument like a legal argument in a court. Until then, nothing is happening.