Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

The bold text is what GCC determined was problematic in terms of the Bar Standards Board.

Sorry @MarieDeGournay was quoting you in italics but the formatting undid it!

Am I missing something? What else was deemed 'objectionable'?

The two tweets Stonewall complained about were the one about Morgan Page where she mentions the Cotton Ceiling:

"Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called "overcoming the cotton ceiling" and it is popular".

The other was based on a Sunday Times article:

"On this issue I and many other women are grateful to @thetimes for fairly and accurately reporting on the appalling levels of intimidation, fear and coercion that are driving the @stonewalluk trans self-ID agenda."

As I said in my PP, I didn't know what Alison Bailey had done that was considered 'objectionable'. As far as I can see, she was clear and open about her objections to 'trans extremism', and that was judged to be OK because it was an expression of protected beliefs.

TWO of her tweets were deemed by a GCC enquiry to be a non-acceptable expression of those beliefs. Two tweets were the 'objectionable manifestation'?

"the inducement was to inflict the detriment on grounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectionable manifestation of her belief."
Am I missing something? What else was deemed 'objectionable'?

In particular, a quote from p73 of that report -

'This policy is founded on an erroneous
understanding of the law (see §§225–226 above). The policy is reviewed
annually by Stonewall, and its incorrect summary of the law does not
appear to have been picked up by them. In my view the policy states
the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is.
To that extent the policy is misleading'

Which led to the phrase 'Stonewall Law'

www.essex.ac.uk/-/media/documents/review/events-review-report-university-of-essex-september-2021.pdf

Ooh, I missed that one. Got a link to it?

And all the Stonewall cheerleaders appear to have also missed the excoriating report in 2021 by the University of Essex into Stonewall's "misleading advice".

Indeed. I suspect the scolders on this thread haven't actually read any of the judgement(s) (unlike the rest of us) and are simply parroting TRA talking points from Twitter.

It's worth noting that Kirrin Medcalfe, of the support dog, has moved on to working for this outfit:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5125486-seeninjournalism-thread-about-media-consultancy-company-neon

Oh yes, of course. Stonewall now look like a gay-friendly, fair and impartial organisation, promoting the rights of lesbians and gay men who know what the word homosexual means and aren't afraid to use it.

People didn't nickname their wrong advice Stonewall Law, they don't have a barrister whose book was wrong before it was even printed, and their reps in court aren't people who need their mum and a comfort dog before they can speak

How could we have missed all that!

Free Tipp : if you're going to be a day late and copy your homework, always make sure the person you're copying is actually clever. If you can't tell, ask a grown up for help.

Isn't it interesting that it takes 24 hours for scolders to turn up, and then several descend at once with the same talking points?

"Quote-mining". Thanks, MaidOfAle. I will try to remember that one.

The term that applies to your post is "quote-mining". You took five words out of my post to attack them outside of their context. I see your dishonest tactics.

Lesbians are women. Bisexual women are women. Those women benefit from legal clarity.

Stonewall - A charity that WANTS employers to remove the word mother from maternity polices at the same time as promoting men that WANT their families to call them mother.

I think there are important principles here - about manifestation of belief and the influence of lobby groups. We need more clarity because Justice Bourne's decision seems to raise more questions than it answers. I've supported Allison Bailey at every stage and if she and her team decide to take it further, I will support again, all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond.

Exactly.

The court has clarified that treating people the way Stonewall WANTS employers to is discrimination.

Organisations which penalise people or side-line them due to them understanding the nature of sex and human biology need to be aware that they will always get push back; they will be always subject to legal test and examination. You win some and you lose some...... though in future organisations will perhaps pause before acting so prejudicially, and other organisations and bodies may also pause before becoming too involved with them.

"is well worth the donations"

AB spent £1 million for the courts to twice clarify Stonewall have done nothing wrong. I'm sure the LGBT community will be very thankful to her for taking all this time and money to show that Stonewall aren't as bad as many on mumsnet say they are.

Well worth it?

Absolutely, the coping strategy employed here by posters trying to minimise sloppy process, is that if a meeting had been held at a different time or a letter had been sent by someone the process would be fine and the case would be lost.

"Sloppy process" includes the dreadful policies and procedures from Stonewall and many others which formalise complete capitulation to a fantasy.

Anything goes for employees and managers once they have sucked up that licence to abuse reasonable challenges.

It's all sloppy process. There's no gender identity process that isn't slop. How can there be when it's a wordsmithed fantasy papered over lies and bad behaviour?

It didn't fail at making Stonewall look bad, it succeeded at that very well. Any HR department with any sense will be seeing that following Stonewall's advice will get you into trouble and you and you alone will carry the can for that.

This rise in objectionable behaviour will coincide with HR departments becoming more savvy of the need to follow proper process.

And they will have to follow that proper process against trans activists who harass their GC colleagues or customers too. Win win, don't you think?

Men want this destroyed as well of course.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/be-more-seen/

The protection of gender-critical beliefs in the Equality Act means that employers should treat people fairly when they speak up to say that sex matters. But many are still acting according to “Stonewall law”, viewing people who say that sex is real, immutable and important as bigots – to be, at best, barely tolerated.

The SEEN organisers have found widespread support and interest, but also fear of engagement. People are afraid to “out” themselves as gender-critical at work (and some had to ask to be left out of our picture above). This fear is well-founded. The DEFRA chapter of the civil-service SEEN is fighting a legal challenge to its existence, and the launch of SEEN in publishing sparked a hostile response from the Pride networks of the biggest UK publishers.