Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

@merrymouse

Also, as a lawyer, a foundational duty is that you should never let your own personal beliefs interfere with your duties to a client. Jolyon doesn’t seem able to grasp this, which is very odd for someone who is a QC

Particularly odd because at the moment the rest of barrister twitter seems to be defending the profession against government attacks on “activist lawyers”. Either you believe in the principle of legal representation for all or you don’t.

Precisely. Jolyon’s attack on Keira’s legal team is no different to the Daily Mail calling judges enemies of the people. He doesn’t seem to have engaged with the judgment in Bell at all, besides saying that it’s so terrible and that it’s akin to the Holocaust. He seems unable to explain why it’s so bad.

The Bar code of conduct is interesting. He is sailing close to the wind. I did have a good look and think he is probably a good legal argument on which side to the wind he is. At the moment i think he could argue his innocence in legal terms but only just.

The code of conduct is that you should uphold the principle and integrity of the profession and its institutions. So basically don't call judges liars or corrupt in anyway. Looking at his tweets he hasn't done this directly. Only by implication and in a round about way. (Look at the exact wording).

He is behaving in a fashion which undermines the code of conduct imo but doesn't quite cross it. Which is just as bad in practice but not necessarily enough to get him hung out to dry on it.

The arrogance of it is astonishing.

Great tweet from Oliver Burkeman (who has consistently been sensible about all of this). Doesn't say who he's talking about but I assume probably Maugham and Pullman.

Really shocking to me - in truth a real eye opener - how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard. A really powerful lesson to me.

He's almost at TRA levels of DARVO now.

He is behaving in a fashion which undermines the code of conduct imo but doesn't quite cross it. Which is just as bad in practice but not necessarily enough to get him hung out to dry on it.

Not sure what his current and future career plans are, but if I were paying £££ for somebody's expertise on tax law, I wouldn't be impressed - not so much because of the ethics, but because I would think his head just isn't in the game.

Got many friends this morning who are preening themselves on Twitter for having “started Monday right” by donating to the Good Law Project ‘Transgender Fund’.
I can’t understand this, I just can’t understand it.

@GoodbyePorpoiseSpit

Got many friends this morning who are preening themselves on Twitter for having “started Monday right” by donating to the Good Law Project ‘Transgender Fund’. I can’t understand this, I just can’t understand it.

For their sake, I hope any appeal will employ lawyers with a better grasp of the subject matter than JM.

@GoodbyePorpoiseSpit

Got many friends this morning who are preening themselves on Twitter for having “started Monday right” by donating to the Good Law Project ‘Transgender Fund’. I can’t understand this, I just can’t understand it.

These are friends you need to let slide.

Anyone who virtual signals on social media about donating to any supposedly ‘good cause’ immediately gets an eye raise from me. I’ll let it go a couple of times but eventually I’ll hit unfollow. I have no issue with charitable donations, but by doing it quietly you are doing it in good faith. If you’re shouting about it I’m questioning your motives.

You'd have to be pretty ignorant about the issues or indoctrinated to think that now is the time to jump on the "puberty blockers must be given to children" bandwagon.

Agree, nauticant.

Yes exactly @nauticant

[quote nauticant]Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949[/quote]
Because slug sex is absolutely relevant when discussing humans?

Some lizards can 'drop' body parts if they chose to, and grow them back. Clearly this means we can chop off our arms and legs if we fancy some new ones?

Reading that thread, I have no idea why I continue to be shocked on this topic, but I do wonder what the point is in stuff like this. In reply to a biologist

'If you really are a biologist, then you should no there are not 2 sexes but a lot more in between. And that it depends on which characteristics you chose to consider.'

I cannot make the slightest bit of sense over saying stuff like this. Do you expect the biologist to go 'oh my bad, you are right' and then join the religion or something!?

This dragging in of abortion and contraception is no accident. It comes over like “You naughty mouthy women just won’t shut up, will you? Well, you can’t have your abortion and contraception any more then. There! That’ll learn you! Do what you’re told like a good girl”.

Comes in useful for misrepresenting feminists as 'the christian right' or whatever also. Afterall, what feminist would campaign to end abortion rights for under 16s?!

Its also a bit interesting that suddenly, MRA types are concerned about womens/girls access to abortion. Makes me think back to that meeting 'we are still here' or something, where it was admitted that in order to get women onside, TRAs should pretend to care about period poverty and sch.

Its also a bit interesting that suddenly, MRA types are concerned about womens/girls access to abortion. Makes me think back to that meeting 'we are still here' or something, where it was admitted that in order to get women onside, TRAs should pretend to care about period poverty and sch.

See also abortion rights in Ireland

Sees to me the only time the rights of women matter, is if they can be used as a gotchya. Same as how TRAs are deeply concerned that GNC women might be mistaken for men in female only spaces

Don't care about our right to privacy away from males, do they?

Don't care about our right to campaign on issues that are unique to us without having to include males, do they?

Don't care about women fleeing domestic violence, sometimes with young children, having to try and recover in a refuge with a male walking around the place scaring women and posing with their dick out, do they?

Don't care about the girls in schools forced to share toilets with the boys, do they?

Don't care about our right to accurately describe our sex class, do they?

Don't care about the bereaved mothers being insulted by 'inclusive' language, do they?

Don't care about the women who can't speak English very well not being able to understand 'people with a cervix', do they?

Don't care about women being robbed of medals in their sports, or being at increased risk of injury from being forced to play against a male, do they?

Don't care about women being raped by males in prison, do they?

Don't give a shit about the 2-3 women a week murdered, do they?

Didn't give a shit about the children exposed to porn whilst taking part in art competition with their favourite author, did they?

So many women who have pointed out any of the above have been threatened to be raped, murdered, pissed on, have their heads stamped on, to be set of fire, had their children's lives threatened etc.

They're full of shit. They can keep 'women and girls rights' out of their hypocritical fucking mouths. They're the last people we want fighting our corner, thanks.

I wonder how his wife is able to tell who women and girls are? Seeing as she's referenced them in her tweet about abortion.

Don't care about women fleeing domestic violence, sometimes with young children, having to try and recover in a refuge with a male walking around the place scaring women and posing with their dick out, do they?

Don't care about the girls in schools forced to share toilets with the boys, do they?

And here's the thing - EVEN IF our knowledge of biology was being updated and it was legitimately a spectrum, I DON'T CARE. My experience of moving about in the world is that there are people with pensises who tend to be stronger than people with vaginas and the former group often do the latter huge harm.

Even if you sat me down and explained the science of why some people with penises were genuinely a different sex to what I first assumed based on appearance, it's still entirely irrelevant to me. I want spaces away from people with penises. I should matter, too, as someone who has experienced trauma. The world is a significantly safer place if we use the old-fashioned concept of binary sex. That's still my reality.

So thank you to anyone who wants to change that, Margaret Atwood included, but hell no.

One of the legal directors at Good Law Project is also part of Free Period project - an organisation that campaigns for girls to have free sanitary products at school without once mentioning the word girls.

JM is skating on some pretty thin ice around the judges. So did they ignore the evidence or were too stupid to understand it?

agree Chazs, what exactly is he trying to imply there?

If the evidence exists, why is it so difficult to make it public?

So did they ignore the evidence or were too stupid to understand it?

He would probably argue that you don't have to be stupid to misunderstand or misinterpret something. All humans are capable of making a mistake. Though, tbf, I also think that this would be the best possible reading of what he's said, and it is certainly sailing incredibly close to the wind.

If the evidence exists, why is it so difficult to make it public?

I think the screenshot from chaz indicates that Maugham believes the available evidence was presented to the court. I assume all the evidence (scientific rather than personal testimony) from the judicial review is available as it would be public record.

Some lizards can 'drop' body parts if they chose to, and grow them back. Clearly this means we can chop off our arms and legs if we fancy some new ones?
Exactly.
And birds fly and lay eggs but I expect us mammals will keep growing babies in our uteruses for the foreseeable and I’m not jumping off any high roofs thanks.

Arguments like that are nonsense. How do people say it with a straight face?

"S is a 13 year old trans boy who is on the waiting list at GIDS. He was told that he would have to wait for approximately 24 months to be seen and with his parents decided to see a private provider, GenderGP, where he has been prescribed PBs. We note at this point that the GP in question was removed from the professional register and now operates from outside the United Kingdom. S in his witness statement said:
“13. … I haven’t really thought about parenthood – I have been asked about it by the gender identity specialist I have mentioned but I just have no idea what me in the future is going to think. I haven’t had a romantic
relationship and it’s just not a thing that is really on my radar at the moment.”"

This paragraph from the judgement is interesting, the parents of this 13 yo are paying GenderGP for blockers. It must be infuriating to then be told by the judges that you may be actually harming your child when you've convinced yourself that you're helping them.