Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

Readers: I am sure that you realise that hearache's selective and repetitive use of one word 'degrading' is actually a misrepresentation of the actual tweet.

So far though, you will notice that Hearache has avoided any engagement with this post apart from some on the 16/8/22 posting:

"the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues"

If you believe that then you'll believe me when I tell you that Margaret Thatcher was a great champion of the trade union movement.

Showing that, in fact, supposedly they read that entire post and only had that to offer.

Hearache and other posters have also avoided answering the direct and repeated question of whether they hold Stonewall's own spokespeople to the very same rigour as they are holding the Baroness?

Almost like some people want to not draw attention to what those Stonewall spokespeople have actually said. Particularly Peter Tatchell.

Readers: Please draw your attention to the deflection, misrepresentation and distractive techniques that hearache honestly seems to think is working in their favour.

It is a great demonstration, no?

Not against Stonewall 😀

"Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news."

She believes that lesbian marriage "degrades" women, that lesbian are "neither natural nor normal" or that gay men should be jailed for having consensual sex with 20-year-olds. These are not "old tropes", they are simple statements of fact about a legislator's record on issues.

I know you are not an "expert on LGBT issues" but if you want to start learning a good way to start would be asking a few LGBT people of your acquittance (if you have any) why those things are bigoted things to say and believe.

P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

Indeed! And in almost every instance, the Tribunal found the witnesses to be more reliable than the Claimant. If Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust hadn't already accepted that the alleged transphobic events had taken place - and on the basis of very little evidence - the outcome might have been very different. Odd that the Claimant couldn't cope with the stress of part-time work in the hospital kitchen but could find the mental fortitude to represent themselves in court, too.

extract from tribunal decision

The Claimant’s complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination against the First Respondent in respect of questioning about underwear at a meeting on 25 June 2021 is well-founded and succeeds.
5. All of the Claimant’s remaining complaints are not well-founded and are
dismissed.

REASONS
Introduction

1. These were complaints of direct gender reassignment discrimination, direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, harassment related to gender reassignment, harassment related to disability, harassment related to sex or of a sexual

That's a lot of stuff thrown out.

P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

extract from tribunal decision^The Claimant’s complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination against
the First Respondent in respect of questioning about underwear at a meeting on
25 June 2021 is well-founded and succeeds.^
5. All of the Claimant’s remaining complaints are not well-founded and are
dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
^1. These were complaints of direct gender reassignment discrimination, direct
disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising
in consequence of disability, harassment related to gender reassignment,
harassment related to disability, harassment related to sex or of a sexual
nature, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability and victimisation^
^brought by the Claimant, V, against her former employer, the Sheffield
Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and six named Respondents.^That's a lot of stuff thrown out.P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

P××k News reported that a trans employee won against the NHS. Employee won on one out of sixty-one grounds.

If that's a win, then Allison definitely won, on mathematical grounds. Seeing as she succeeded on more grounds, both in numerical magnitude and by percentage.

And Allison also won…

In case anyone else needs the context of the QT and related thread.

twitter.com/AlixWzl/status/1559849424628715521?

It's funny because they couldn't have been more wrong, Maya won - it was Allison that lost.

😄

Maya lost and still totally fucked us.

I read that earlier and laughed at the appropriateness to this thread.

I thought this tweet was particularly relevant to this thread, re: Ben cooper, is it a win or not etc

mobile.twitter.com/AlixWzl/status/1559849452512362497

Has Hearache expressed any concern for "trans men" being systematically excluded from cervical screening reminders, yet?

Or has it all been continuous sex denial?

Transwomen are male. Transmen are female. It's not "misgendering" to say so. It is correct sexing, and sex =/=gender. You doughnut.

Absolute nonsense, you keep referring to trans men as 'females'. That is misgendering.

Don't be ridiculous. 'Female' refers to sex, not gender. Referring to transmen as females is merely correct sexing. 'Misgendering' is about pronouns.

Any transmen who have given birth have unequivocally proved that they are female, that they have not changed their sex.

Oh no! Hearache

Sadly, it has been confirmed by the committee who looked into complaints about the Surrey PCC that :

Concerning the PC's comment that transgender cyclist Emily Bridges is "male", the Complaints Sub-Committee did not consider the PCC to have misgendered her as the wordwas in reference to sex rather than gender, and there was no misuse of pronouns. The PCC is entitled to express her views on such matters in the course of public debate, and although some people might find these views offensive or distressing, the sub-committee did not consider the views were expressed using disrespectful or gratuitous language in the context they were used.

Look! It is right here!

twitter.com/AlixWzl/status/1559849446518693900?s=20&t=u0kGsdA683rPIeJdRg5Zkg

I mean... I look forward to clarification from Nancy as to which bits she feels is not in keeping with Maya's case. And it seems that alix weasel is going back to see where the complaints committee got their advice from ... but perhaps Stonewall's teachings on what is considered misgendering is also being ignored with other guidance sort somewhere else.

I mean, do you think that this committee would have not sort out some very fine legal advice in this case as protection. After all, this was a complaint against a Police Chief Constable.... the committee kind of really needs to get that decision right.

But I look forward to your usual comeback of 'I would rather trust Stonewall than any random organisation paying money to get unbiased interpretations of the law!!', and your usual inane comebacks. They are kind of predictable by now.

Oh... and just for the purity posters....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonewall-is-split-by-row-about-samesex-marriages-2095468.html

Same sex marriage was not something universally accepted by all the LGB community as has already been said by other members of the LGB community to Hearache across numerous threads.

It was a contentious issue that had Stonewall members against it and Stonewall had the courage to at least open themselves to debate about it.

That was then.... so 2010!

There seems to be no debate allowed now, it seems.

Don't forget, while we are on the 'purity' theme .... let's bring it back to Stonewall at least.

Are you 100% comfortable in 100% of the views expressed by those actually representing Stonewall?

Peter Tatchell
Jane Fae
Nancy Kelley

Yes? No?

I also see your usual tactic of cherry picking one line from a long post and giving a pithy non-answer to avoid engaging with that long post missed 99% of the post.

Which was actually in answer to your superficially bad take on what the Baroness has said in the past.
. . .

Let's have another look at the tweet you refer to. The 'degrading one'.

twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1270703409931452416?s=20&t=CSagMWOpQkNQxFn-BjV0OQ

Because I foresaw (with some justification) that it would lead to degrading the status of women and of girls. This as we now see has happened and is continuing, so my sex are as a binary class in difficult now.

So, you have put a little bit of your own twist there, as usual.

She was discussing the protections of women and girls in conjunction with the wording of a particular bill that was being voted on.

And as far as the 'neither normal nor natural', to be clear, two people of the same sex cannot biologically have children.

Or are you saying that they can?

And are you saying that a family where the children have an active relationship with BOTH biological parents who care for the wellbeing of those children is not better than a family where the children do not know one of their biological parents, even if they are loved and cared for by the people, one of which may be a biological parent, they live with?

Can you please provide proof of this? Because that is not what we are hearing from those children who are now adults of families where they did not and may still not know, one or both of their biological parents.

I look forward to seeing that proof. Otherwise, you have repeated your slurs against Baroness Nicholson from Pink News. It is getting repetitive, but hey, I am sure someone reading along here will have not come across this attempt of yours before.

In fact, hearache on a live and active other thread tonight you are being told by other posters the same thing about same sex marriage and Baroness Nicholson….

So please answer the question. Are you 100% comfortable in 100% of the views expressed by those actually representing Stonewall?

Peter Tatchell
Jane Fae
Nancy Kelley

You are being mighty hypocritical again Hearache.

Please post actual original source evidence and let’s discuss it. But your regurgitation of Penis News and the pp’s reference to a single paragraph with no other evidence backing it up tends to indicate you have nothing more.

And you still seem to like to ignore that at the time she voted against same sex marriage, and has explained why, Stonewall and other organisations were not fully supporting same sex marriage - because of the word ‘marriage’. You must be very young to not know this, or simply taking delight in monstering the Baroness.

You have had lesbians explain it to you on other threads hearache. This really is repetitive. ‘Marriage’ was a word that many LGB people didn’t want to use to describe their same sex relationships.

This was the same in other countries too.

No ‘expertise’ in being LGB needed to understand the debates that were widely reported at the time. And it is others who have told you the history and their own feelings about it.

You might like to conveniently forget this has been explained to you by LGB people on other threads, but long time readers reading across threads tend not to forget this.

See hearache,
others will have read your supposedly clever come back and realise you never addressed the other questions and issues raised in the post.

Are they too inconvenient?

While you are monstering Baroness Nicholson, you like to ignore (and the others who popped on the thread) the spokespeople of
Stonewall and their
well published views. People who are influencing policies of many of the UK organisations.

Just so you remember, I brought three to your attention:

Peter Tatchell

Jane Fae

and Nancy Kelley.

And remember the quotes directly from transitioned males ?

Fully comfortable with them?

Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news. With no actual original source links with any type of critical thinking applied.

So, please answer the question and your lack of answer will be considered as important as your answer.

Are you happy with 100% of what Peter Tatchell, Jane Fae and Nancy Kelley have said in the media?

I will go away and read about this, as I want to be informed as much as possible.

Am still interested in posts a page or two above - why do you vehemently state that a man has given birth? Do you not understand that this is impossible?

Do you not see how simply posting “Freddy is a bloke” really doesn’t help your argument? Those kinds of posts make me veer away from what you’re probably trying to achieve. EVERYBODY knows that it’s impossible for men to give birth.

Sex really does matter when it comes to reproduction and health (and a whole lot else, but I’m prioritising here).

If you’ve got more valid arguments, then please post them. But surely you can see it’s really not helping your stance to insist that men can give birth.

Indeed, breath taking arrogance and complicity in Nicholson's homophobia and misogyny.

They protested against her because she said lesbian families were "neither normal nor natural" and said "every child deserves a mother and father".

If you don't think lesbians can raise children together you're homophobe and misogynist like she is.