Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chameber) Thread 2

Please do! We can handle corrections without sulking and enjoy robust two way (or more) debate - unusual for these times I know!

"Older children (16 and 17 year olds) are frequently (incorrectly) told they will not benefit from blocking medication due to already advanced puberty. However, Natal males’ pubertal development continues into the early 20’s"

Doesn't this (from MM own submission above) contradict what BB said today?

Sorry about that. I was so annoyed at his suggestion that LGBA engaging in political activity was in any way equivalent to the police engaging in political activity. I had been mentally shouting 'without fear or favour' (re policing) and I was shocked at what I interpreted as his disingenuity.

Someone posted this on RoF.
Not sure if this contradicts claims of not acting with any medical expertise?
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19540.html

Yep, I bottled it and didn't follow the link in the end because it freaked me out!

I can't believe BB used the term "deeply problematic". So LOL. Just yesterday I listened to a brilliant rap song, Problematic by Aaron Francis. Its so very very apt.

Wow, I really didn't like mermaids checking my ip especially for that length of time. Chilling.

And Twitter reply to Mermaids reveals where some people's thinking is on the matter:

'When will the idea that biological sex is binary & immutable be challenged? Any court that accepts this shows how out of touch with science & reality it is. Why don't you get experts to talk to this complex issue. A belief should only be protected if it has truth to it. Surely?'

'These are not biological facts, and haven't been for decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance and should get some up-to-date reading on the topic.'

It does reveal the reason that beliefs are protected, I think, and that we don't describe anything as 'fact'. Because most people here will find that tweet absurd; presumably the writer also finds the idea that sex is immutable and dichotomous absurd. His 'facts' are not our 'facts'.

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/mermaids-appeal-against-the-lgb-alliances-charity-status-day-3/

Another lawyer here, and I agree with m'learned friend LeadingQuestion that whatever else he may be (and I don't know him), Michael Gibbon KC is not an idiot.

In terms of 'suggesting' or 'insinuating' everyone will have their own cross examination style. Personally I prefer a conversational style: it puts the witness at ease and they are more likely to let their guard down, it doesn't get the judge's back up if they're not instinctively on side already, and it can be absolutely devastating when done well. A conversational style of cross examination doesn't mean the barrister has given up.

I think Mermaids have an appallingly poor case but don't underestimate their counsel.

Thanks for your input LeadingQuestion it's good to hear from someone who understands the process.

Thanks @LipbalmOrKnickers i managed to do something similar just in time for the end! Will know what to do tomorrow though

I can't see any way it works with her quoted "only 9% straight" stat unless she's mashing together two opposing definitions.

I know the discussion has moved on, but I have been thing about this while (unsuccessfully) trying to work. I think this fundamentally comes down to the fact that the GC position and the GI position are completely opposite.

From the "sex is immutable and sexuality is based on sex" perspective, 9% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Therefore, there is something homophobic going on here.

From the "gender identity is the basis of sexuality and the body is irrelevant / can be altered" perspective, 91% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Not only is there no need to worry about homophobia driving transition, if you're trying to prevent transition you are homophobic.

Because we see homosexuality from completely opposite stand points, each side genuinely sees the other as homophobic. That scientific fact and the law are on our side re "sex matters" is irrelevant to them , because the law used to ban homosexuality and doctors/science genuinely tried to "cure" gay men.

Technically, barristers are bound by the "cab rank rule", which means that if they are approached through their clerks and have the appropriate knowledge, experience and availability, they should act in that case. I'm not sure how much this rule is complied with in practice though.

As @nauticant said earlier today, it seems BB has referred to Paediatrics journal. But this is surely a medical journal and BB isn't, as she made certain we knew, a medical person. So why's she interested in it if it's outside her remit?

I can answer a question about bundles which was raised on one of the tribunal threads.

Where solicitors have been engaged (as opposed to where a barrister is acting through direct access), it is the general rule that the solicitors acting for the claimant or applicant will put the bundle together. What goes into the bundle is usually agreed between the parties. Where there is a dispute, the matter will be determined by a judge during a preliminary hearing as part of their case management duties.

Sometimes, a judge may order that the defendant or respondent should put the bundle together e.g. where the financial resources of the parties are unbalanced/the respondent does not have access to printing facilities.

It will usually be someone fairly junior in the solicitor's firm who puts the bundle together, but one would hope that it would be checked by someone more senior before it goes before the court!

Rather like Rebekah Vardy's lawyer, I think the Mermaids barrister has been dealt a duff hand. I wonder if he ever advised his client to withdraw the case.

It is extraordinary watching all this unfold.

I'm more than happy to stick around to help with questions about legal procedure (time allowing) 😁.

Seconded. I don't comment much on these threads as some of the legal minutiae baffles me!

No, please don't. You have no idea how opaque legal procedure can seem to those of us with limited experience of the court system and law. I've learned so much watching these tribunals and gained so much respect for some lawyers. Please stick around and help us understand better.

Just to add, I don't really want to get involved in whether any arguments which may be put forward by either side are good ones or not. I was simply musing about why that line of questioning was being put - but I'll keep my musings to myself going forward 🤐.

@ImNotAnExpert That is amazing. Thank you for sharing 😂

I've messaged you, Red.