Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

[Xanthangum]

1. Helen Staniland and Glinner giving evidence to the Commons

1. Fair Play For Women VS UK Statistics Authority at Royal Courts of Justice at 10am

1. The Court of Appeal and Harry/ We Are Fair Cop - The Court of Appeal will examine the validity of the College of Police Hate Crimes Guidance

I wanted to start a thread where any major decisions or outcomes and links to anyone live tweeting or online footage. See you back here tomorrow!

How did this not result in legal action the first time round? Madness that AC feels safe to bring it back now. I'd dig for Helen against a real liar.

These lines from that Daily Mail article:

Dr Nicola Williams, director of Fair Play for Women, accused the trans lobby group of putting pressure on statisticians, saying: ‘The ONS has been captured by Stonewall. It's a complete stitch up.

‘The ONS is unlawfully messing around with the definition of sex and allowing self identification through the back door.’

Stonewall - the trans lobby group. Say what you see DM.

@testingmitb

Who was the gentleman coaching his question in a leading fashion to Graham? The one who seemed to be insinuating that there was no smoke without fire in regard to Glinner being banned from several platforms?

The chappie/or girlie (don't know their pronouns) is Charles Colville, 5th Viscount Colville of Culross. A hereditary Lord (who won the election lottery amongst the other hereditary Lords for his privileged seat). Safe in the knowledge that the GRA doesn't even try to pretend to believe in the concept of gender identity over biological sex when it comes to men and hereditary peerages. Wonder what was behind his very insinuating tone.

They were both fantastic - if they are reading this thread, then thank you so much.

I thought it was good that Colville took that line. If I were coming to this cold I would wonder about glinner being banned on many platforms. Asking the question in a somewhat hostile manner meant it got tackled head on.

Several important points came out. Leveraging of one ban to drive others. Medium being owned by Twitter. Mob mentality. Opacity of decision making. A mob goal of reputational damage based on no actual evidence of actual hatred.

I am glad the questioning was robust not sycophantic. Yes, I even welcomed seeing their irritation at glinner's tendency to go off on a tangent without always properly answering their question.

Helen was outstanding at answering the questions in a way likely to drive legislative change.

The last thing I want is for government to swap one kind of group think for another. Robust debate is desperately needed. No sacred cows. No high priests. No golden boys or girls. The gender critical case can withstand robust challenge. Bring it on.

I bought glinner several drinks this evening.

I want to buy Helen a drink. Anyone know which pub or garden centre I can find her in?

Safe in the knowledge that the GRA doesn't even try to pretend to believe in the concept of gender identity over biological sex when it comes to men and hereditary peerages.

Funny that

The gender critical case can withstand robust challenge. For sure.

I think it was despite Colville that Graham got his point across, though. It was rather snide.

How wonderful for all this to be aired in real life, with the issues being properly and reasonably discussed. Without being blocked or banned.

I don't even understand what the objection is.

Having accurate data on both sex and transgender status gives a full picture.

Thus they can plan for both sex related stuff (maternity, nursery places, how many elderly women will be in the population etc) and trans related stuff (numbers, whether non binary etc) and plan accordingly for that.

The idea of collecting both is a no no, always.

At work our D&I group said 'you can't ask sex!' (even with a prefer not to say) only gender id.

So if you have a non binary person saying they have experienced sexism for example, you've got no idea which way it goes.

Who does that help?

Oh and also well done everyone!

Yes, Cailleach1; that freedom of speech in a sense that a courtroom ensures and the formal rules that one side speaks and then the other and no one is shouted down and justice is done and is seen to be done is a really important part of our system.

I hope the new guidance is out by tomorrow because it is going to be very hard to convince what presumably are 100% committed to "self identity by passport" civil servants to follow the judgment.

It’s out already
twitter.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1369342344298967047?s=21

Thanks for the link. Glad to see they removed the passport reference (as you can apparently self declare that on the passport - how weird is that! I didn't know that until today)

Just been watching some of the Q&A with Graham and Helen. Have already laid flowers at Graham's feet, but also want to express my huge admiration for Helen. If I understand correctly, she is a software engineer who has not been in the limelight before? She is so eloquent and strong! And has such a grasp on it all. What a formidable woman.

@Manderleyagain You’re right. Dr Nic worked for free from late 2017. I’m not sure when she started being full time but was def so from the GRA consultation in mid 2018 onwards, and started being paid from autumn 2020. Hence the crowdfunder in October was transparent about that being the need. it’s still on a shoe string - everyone else works for free. The Census crowdfunder was such a lift for her I know - really encouraging how everyone supported her, and so fast. You can always visit the website for more gardening 😀 Reading this whole thread is such a treat! 😄

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56338666

On the BBC news front page.

express my huge admiration for Helen. If I understand correctly, she is a software engineer who has not been in the limelight before?

iirc, it was Helen who conceived and framed the questions behind the crowdfunded YouGov survey. And, of course, I can't link you to her tweets or tweeted summaries of it because her Twitter account has been suspended.

This is a MN discussion of it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3404335-Poll-52-of-people-consider-a-person-who-was-born-male-and-has-male-genitalia-but-identifies-as-a-woman-to-be-a-man

@unwashedanddazed

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56338666

On the BBC news front page.

Excellent

It doesn't say who wrote it, or report anything that the ONS actually argued - it is written like the ONS got it right all the time, but there was this court case..................

Still, it's there which is an improvement.

Yes there's a slightly dismissive tone to it. Almost like ' these women made a fuss about something, the judge agreed with them but still a fuss about nothing'.

I thought the Telegraph coverage / linked upthread was better.

Disappointed that I can't see anything in The Times though.

I can't see The Times not covering it so maybe tomorrow?

What a day.

Especially busy for Jason Coppel QC who represented FPFW in the morning and the College of Policing in the afternoon!

Glinner and Helen were great, FPFW have done an amazing thing, the Court of Appeal seems ok so far for Harry the Owl.

I've done nothing but follow and watch snippets in between work and kids etc, and I'm knackered. Hats off to those working hard to preserve our rights.

The lack of transparency coupled with such odd results does make it look like a deliberate attempt by Twitter to shape public opinion

Doesn't it just.

@OvaHere

Yes there's a slightly dismissive tone to it. Almost like ' these women made a fuss about something, the judge agreed with them but still a fuss about nothing'.

The BBC have "They argued this could potentially have the effect of "distorting" the data gathered in the census." though I don't see what purpose the inverted commas serve.

The ONS say " "We are continuing to ask a binary choice, female or male, sex question on the census. This approach is unchanged since 1801."
but this is not true. At no time since 1801 has the ONS believed that people might have difficulty knowing what sex they are, such that they might need to refer to a piece of paper to be sure.

The judge expressed surprise that several million census forms have already been completed, using the rejected advice, since Census Day isn't here yet. Surely someone should be held responsible for this?