Barristers rebel against ‘anti-trans’ speaker at LGBTQ event - Times Article

[Igneococcus]

Good on Middle Temple to not give in (so far):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/80ee271e-464e-11ec-aa43-5cc5157b09b9?shareToken=3d70979d17b8fc0b29e1ce2579672672

There’s been a lot about this on twitter with the vast majority of people aghast that barristers or people who want to be barristers, want to exclude someone whose views they don’t agree with. As many have pointed out “you’ve picked the wrong job then”

I suspect “barristers” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here as well as of the 100, I suspect its the fox botherer, a handful of others & 95 law students.

Surely they are not saying that Nancy Kelley, Kieran Aldred (Stonewall’s head of policy) and Robin Allen (on working party that lobbied for the ban on conversion therapy) are no match for Naomi Cunningham?

People are soon going to realise that it's not just views they disagree with. It's views they desperately don't want to be made public.

In this case discussion regarding

"the fight to ban gay conversion therapy”

As one of the comments points out "It was a debate, not a ‘celebration of inclusion’. Debates are about debating. That’s the whole point."

Indeed they are.

The comments on that article are good and I think totally representative of ordinary people's views on this matter.

The comments are great!

Well clearly Nancy Kelly and stonewall don't want people looking to hard at the conversion therapy bill I wonder why that is 🤔

I think the journalist got the tone of that article exaclty right.

"Nancy Kelley, the chief executive of Stonewall, the campaign group that has adopted a controversial approach to gender self-identity...

Stonewall campaigns for a wide definition of conversion therapy that would make it a criminal offence for therapists to try to help patients with gender dysphoria to feel comfortable in their birth sex...."

Stonewall's approach is absolutely shocking when explained honestly.

I love this shift in wording that I’ve seen recently.

When JKR first made her gender critical comments I made a point on here that news reports kept saying she had made ‘controversial’ comments: this is a loaded word which implies that her views were out of step with the majority of people.

Now I keep seeing the word ‘controversial’ relating to the views of TRAs and Stonewall.

Horizon I think that’s a really good point

Barristers don't feel competent to argue with GC views?

Oh dear. That's going to be a bit of a problem then, isn't it? Possibly some more training required? Back bone? Directions to the grip shop?

There are whole cohorts of people in the wrong job it seems. There are barristers, journalists at the BBC, university lecturers, who can't handle the very idea of an opposing view being debated.

It does rather suggest they don't have much confidence in their own argument, or much evidence, and quite possibly that they deep down agree with these people they are so afraid to talk to.

Kelley was scheduled to be joined by Kieran Aldred, Stonewall’s head of policy, and Robin Allen, QC, who was on a working party that lobbied for the proposed ban on conversion therapy to be included in the Queen’s Speech.

What sort of 'debate' were they expecting to have with 3 people who all shared the same view?

It's the automatic cry of 'it's unsafe!' if someone with different views than them is in the room that's so risible. Barristers, fgs.

I think when the highly egocentric 'unsafe' rhetoric was confined to navel-gazing students it was to some extent batted away as a fad. Now it's being seen amidst barristers, the BBC and university staff, the cat is well and truly out of the bag about the effects of Stonewall's schemes and scheming.

Here's hoping my liberty never depends on a barrister who doesn't know the meaning of debate.

@Floisme

Here's hoping my liberty never depends on a barrister who doesn't know the meaning of debate.

Well quite. It's not the first characteristic one looks for in someone whose entire career is to expertly refute opposite points of view 😂

If you have such emotional vulnerability that debate is likely to make you feel unsafe, then really you do not have the capacity to be working as a barrister. This is going to have to be faced.

'...a group of anonymous barristers and law students said that the decision to include Cunningham “turned an event that was meant to be a celebration of inclusion into a debate between those who support and oppose trans rights”.

...and so they want this celebration of LGBTQ inclusion to exclude a lesbian barrister.

You couldn't make it up!

LGBT+ now simply means T.

It would appear to be showing a belief that LGB now cannot exist in the same space as T: so a belief that LGB rights are incompatible with T rights.

@Floisme

Here's hoping my liberty never depends on a barrister who doesn't know the meaning of debate.

Nor a professional association that backs down at the first hint of froth and high emotion.

Good on Middle Temple.

@Leafstamp

'...a group of anonymous barristers and law students said that the decision to include Cunningham “turned an event that was meant to be a celebration of inclusion into a debate between those who support and oppose trans rights”.

...and so they want this celebration of LGBTQ inclusion to exclude a lesbian barrister.

You couldn't make it up!

Agree entirely with the general point, but just to say that Naomi is married to a man.

@Horizons83

I love this shift in wording that I’ve seen recently.

When JKR first made her gender critical comments I made a point on here that news reports kept saying she had made ‘controversial’ comments: this is a loaded word which implies that her views were out of step with the majority of people.

Now I keep seeing the word ‘controversial’ relating to the views of TRAs and Stonewall.

The Wikipaedia entry for LGB Alliance makes heavy use of this "controversial" tag.

NC, who has got ovaries of steel, is married to a v senior (male) barrister.

Well done Middle Temple and I'll add another WTF at the idea of 'barristers' who shrink from the mere idea of a debate. Deeply disingenuous twisting of the session to imply that trans barristers are not welcome. Where does it say that? This is specifically about conversion therapy

When you write to your professional organisation of course you mention your desire to get glitter over yourself and wear colourful accessories…

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1460254986663776256