Jo Maugham

Maughan referred to SB as 'he', and said something about his salary - like he knew.

I think SB is a woman. Other QCs who know SB personally refer to SB using female pronouns.

Is there any reason SB couldn't be a collective of a few people, male and female?

Running a high profile twitter account must be time consuming if it's only one person who presumably has quite a demanding day job also.

I would agree that the live tweet along for some reason feels very female. Which makes for an interesting discussion in itself - why or how do we interpret certain behaviours or speech patterns as 'male' or 'female'?

I think the secret Barrister is male!

I think so too and always have. They don't generally take what you would call a female-centred outlook on controversial male/female cases they've looked at. I know that isn't conclusive as some women don't but it's my feeling.

For the blocked, it says: "I wonder whether you'd be more careful if you were not operating from behind the cloak - for the moment at any rate - of anonymity?"

Is it just me who thinks that this is absolutely nuts though? Glinner pointed it out - it definitely reads like a threat to reveal SB's identity. He's threatening to release private information he is party to about the SB if the SB doesn't do what he wants?

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1339999171538006017

I'm glad SB is calling out JM (and JM's replying like a 5yo). I sometimes get SB and David Allen Green confused, but DAG was tweeting fairly TWAW tweets a while ago.

I'd gone back and forth re SB being male/female (from the infrequent tweets I read) til I read their book which comes across as male.

Sorry, thinking about it, maybe I'm being thick and it wasn't SB's real voice. Still think SB is male though.

Newsnight. Damn spell check

An aside: the secret barrister is male. He narrated something on news night a while back about the unacceptable state of delays in court proceedings - a male voice.

I think there is a feeling among many at the bar that JM is treading quite dangerously now. I certainly wouldn’t be tweeting in the way that he has done recently. This whole issue has raised urgent questions about the extent to which (and way in which) the bar code of conduct applies where social media is concerned.

the parent should consent on behalf of the child as happens with young children for any medical treatment

I'm not sure that that would be possible as WPATHs Standards of Care state

"The adolescent has given informed consent and, particularly when the adolescent has not reached the age of medical consent"

Yes, that is a very good point. As evidenced by Helen Webberley, there are doctors happy to make money out of children in this way.

There doesn't seem to be much fawning/agreeing with him so PPs' thoughts around his motives for doubling down are interesting

[quote nauticant]One problem about the deleted tweet by The Secret Barrister:

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1340006006005370883

is that they included the hashtag #FakeLaw which is the one they're using at the moment to flog their newly published book. It's a bit grubby to use this argument to sell stuff:

twitter.com/search?q=%23FakeLaw&src=hashtag_click[/quote]
Absolutely characteristic of SB, though. He probably wouldn't have criticised Jolyon had the latter's stupid tweet not neatly illustrated one of the fallacies in SB's latest book.

One problem about the deleted tweet by The Secret Barrister:

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1340006006005370883

is that they included the hashtag #FakeLaw which is the one they're using at the moment to flog their newly published book. It's a bit grubby to use this argument to sell stuff:

twitter.com/search?q=%23FakeLaw&src=hashtag_click

I’m glad that people are speaking out about some of this stuff now. Previously it’s been hard to do so but I think the fact that a lot of lawyers are now putting Jolyon straight has helped. Still a total lack of common sense on this from many academic lawyers though but most of them have never had a real-life job outside academia or had to deal with real cases, so possibly not surprising.

It would be extremely scary if we let parents and doctors make choices with no chance for the child’s interests (both current and future) to be represented.

Another Barrister is disagreeing with JM, and I think he's making a similar point to yours.

[quote WeeBisom]@RealityNotEssentialism, I thought of another example where the courts have ruled against both the parents and the doctors. There was a case a while ago where the parents and doctors wanted to sterilise a very disabled girl. The court said this was not in her best interests. The court said that the doctors had focused too much on what the parents wanted and what would be convenient for them, rather than what was best for the child.[/quote]
Yes that’s a good example. Children are not just possessions of the parents. They are individuals who will be adults in the future and deserve not to have their entire future irreparably changed by actions taken by adults. You can always find some doctor or another willing to do something. Doctors don’t speak with one voice and there is huge divergence within the medical profession. For example, there have been several doctors at the Tavistock who have been very uncomfortable with what is happening there. You then have doctors like Adrian Harrop or Helen Webberley who don’t give two hoots about safeguarding and who believe that gender reassignment for children is a positive thing. It would be extremely scary if we let parents and doctors make choices with no chance for the child’s interests (both current and future) to be represented.

But surely, this means GLP intends to attempt to undermine Gillick, whereas the High Court upheld it?

So the absolute opposite as to the misinformation that is the standard TRA argument?

@RealityNotEssentialism, I thought of another example where the courts have ruled against both the parents and the doctors. There was a case a while ago where the parents and doctors wanted to sterilise a very disabled girl. The court said this was not in her best interests. The court said that the doctors had focused too much on what the parents wanted and what would be convenient for them, rather than what was best for the child.

Also, there have been cases where doctors have performed FGM on girls at a parent’s request. According to Jolyon’s view that’s fine and dandy. Some doctors will engage in deeply immoral practices which is why you need the court there to protect the child’s interests.