TRA on tribunal panel for school gender identity cass

I think we are slightly kidding ourselves if we still expect honesty from some of the more vocal individuals.

IMO it should not have come down to a Judge pointing out the obvious, that been seen to have engaged personal political campaigns, obliges the individual to remove themselves from the case.

Thank god for that. Thanks for the update, Laughing.

Update - he's been recused.
Thread here
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4584264-edward-lord-has-been-recused-from-hearing-a-gender-critical-belief-case

Well the NHS can’t be that short of money if they have money to paint pretty stripes on zebra crossings

The ones I have seen are pretty terrible

Yup.

Organised it so that males get to choose on the day between three options. And some regular female users had to stop using it at all as they were left with nothing.

Yippee for male supremacism female exclusionary, heavily male favouring inclusion. You'd have to be heavily misogynist to see a win in that total balls up.

In a more just world, it would be Lord facing some sort of tribunal.

How has this woman done anything remotely as harmful as what Lord has done to women?

Ugh. Campaigned for trans women to have full access to the women's bathing ponds at Hampstead.

A bloke.

With his own agenda.

The teaching assistant did nothing wrong. The school should be ashamed.

And that bloke is totally inappropriate.

It seems like they are extremely proud of how unwavering they are on their position no debate, no compromise type rhetoric, and their 'achievements' . I can't understand why they wouldn't have recused themself before it became an issue (if they had the integrity they claim).

Edward Lord gives me the rage. Typical misogyny from a LibDem.

Exactly. I would too. And neither you nor I have ever stooped to calling people not of our way of thinking by terms of abuse. Never mind openly and from a public position.

A strong bias, a pre formed, fixed opinion and a desire to control a situation and force it to go your personal way is anything but impartial justice or even basically ethical in this process. But TRAs tend to be exceptionally low on class at the best of times.

The Edward Lord who asked for consultation responses on single-sex facilities in London, and then essentially dismissed any responses that wanted single-sex facilities on the grounds that they were biased?

Yup, sounds like a fair and even-minded type.

Yes to be honest I would recuse myself if I was in a position to judge a TRA in a tribunal, as I have integrity and it isn't fair for me to do so, as I'm unlikely to change my mind on their ideology and I'm not sure I could be impartial. Just like I have doubts that someone like Lord who allegedly calls women "terfs" could be impartial here.

I am sure that if Discoverreads found themselves facing a similar panel which included one or more of us FWR activists, or even mere readers of MN, they would have very strong objections indeed.

Apologies to OP (and others) for not spotting this thread this morning.

Maya F was doing the Tribunal Tweets this morning (and very helpfully linked to the case law and offending tweets etc.).

Hats off to her prolific transcription and links.

The history with the consultation responses would indicate that they're unlikely to take on board information that they don't like

Yes exactly. There's a running theme in their activism. The opinions they don't like on this topic are not worth consideration. Which makes me think they are not appropriate to sit in judgement on someone who holds those beliefs. I think they will not be able to stand back and consider the pov of both parties objectively. And I can well understand why higgs thinks that too.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

It's really interesting. I don't have a clue about how much, legally, existing views and the manner in which they are proclaimed are allowed to form part of judgement panel. But as a lay person it feels very off, whoever it is. The history with the consultation responses would indicate that they're unlikely to take on board information that they don't like.

Whether or not the lay members are paid isnt really relevant. The poster wasn't using 'volunteered' in that sense. They meant Lord put themself forward for this case, rather than it being a litter to them. It's notable because as someone who is v involved in political campaigning on this im sure lord would have known about the case. They didn't pass over it then so it's not surprising they're not refusing now. They are very very keen on sitting on this one.

The argument is that there will either be bias, or the appearance of bias which will undermine confidence in the tribunal system. It's a belief discrimination case. Lord campaigns very strongly for the things that higgs was criticising. They have made many public statements that people with similar positions on gender identity/ sex to higgs should not be platformed, are transphobic haters etc.

Its not about Lord id'ing non binary. Its about lord's stated opinions on the beliefs that are the centre on the case.

MN stop editing my posts.

This is a individual who has a personal beneficial interest in the outcome of the case.

The State has an ethical obligation to ensure that the case is judged on merit not on political activism. Justice must be seen to be done therefore State actors who have a beneficial interest should not have to be removed, they should do this themselves by declaring their public activism may lead to the perception of bias and that this is not what the justice system should be about.

Judges should themselves be able to determine in a social context what is or is not currently acceptable. If the Judge believes that such a fundemental element would be a problem, then the Judge should seriously consider withdrawing from the case themselves

man alive, Meg John Barker is basically Jordan Peterson isn’t she?

I'm sure she would appreciate that description

I posted about the application and details of the hearing fixture a couple of days ago.

social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance

man alive, Meg John Barker is basically Jordan Peterson isn’t she? That’s pretty much the definition of woman from his recent Times article

Lord's (female) partner Meg-John Barker, as Datun mentioned:

Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.
However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression. As always an intersectional understanding is vital and we need to be mindful that what is culturally regarded as the epitome of femininity is white, middle class, youthful, non-disabled, heterosexual, cisgender, and thin.

You can enjoy the whole MN discussion here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker