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

Thanks for the correction Joan

I should learn not to believe everything I read

Trans ideology is gay conversion so you can't have an inclusion event based on that ideology IMHO. Hence why we need someone gender critical to be represented.

Makes you wonder why the trans ideologists are so frightened of actual discussion and debate doesn't it?

Anyone else feel the 'Law' needs a thorough going over? The Equal Bench Book is still in need of a good overhaul.

I can now see why, in the new wave CRT etc privilege is used relentlessly, however, it highlights just how privileged all of these anti-GC proponents are. They seem to assume that everyone should bow to their opinions because they are correct and on the side of the righteous, the rest of us are halfwits without the right to opinion.

Now I keep seeing the word ‘controversial’ relating to the views of TRAs and Stonewall. well spotted Horizon the plates are definitely shifting

I think their fear of debate is very telling when you remember how it used to feel debating controversial people (to the point of Nick Griffin on Question Time). I remember a sense of anticipation and triumph about seeing one’s champions easily crush the racists or whatever. Because we had real faith in our position. They don’t have that.

Seems like todays young professionals quake at the knees when having to deal with "debate" as any reasonable person would understand it. Its a joke and not a very funny one. Good article anyway.

This is what happens when a generation, or part thereof, of schoolchildren get indoctrinated. They are now law students as well as junior journalists, publishers, BBS editorial staff, etc, and they can't cope with the tide having turned so drastically. In a way I feel sorry for them, as it isn't their fault they were taught gender nonsense. However surely they were also taught to read, research and to think critically.

Barristers. Ffs. Barristers. What a world. What a world.

Ok, so, as I understand it, the counter to this is that it wasn't initially meant to be a 'debate' as a focus, it was the inaugural event for a support network for LGBTQ+ people. As is completely customary for this sort of thing involving barristers, a discussion about law was included as part of the proceedings.

Given the auspices and the line up including Kelley, it's entirely likely this was some of Stonewall influenced network, and the topic under discussion was the 'conversion therapy ban', which is Stonewall's current campaign.

From the looks of things, it was very much a soft-soap promotional of the idea to begin with, and it looks like some sensible people may have said "Um, this is not a neutral thing, and there are some legitimate opposing views, and we're a group of barristers, what the heck is going on?"

So, while I have some sympathy for those hoping it was going to simply be a support network, not a big debate about conversion therapy, the way to avoid that would have been to not have the topic of conversion therapy as your 'discussion'. Pick something else. Pick the appalling situation in Ghana, where even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said he won't criticise the homophobic bishops there supporting horrific legislation.

If you choose something that many LGB people have serious questions about, then yes, it demands a robust debate. As someone who actually faced conversion therapy, I'm quite, quite disgusted that these LGBTQ+ barristers wouldn't want that to happen.

I'd like to feel supported by a work network that is supposed to include lesbians, and instead I'm having to work with people who share articles saying lesbians are liars and keep asking if I think I'm a man or not. So guess what? Barristers are going to have to pull their big girl pants up and deal with the fact that Kelley & co are promoting a religion, and that should not be accepted uncritically, especially not by sodding barristers!!

I see the word ‘allies’ is now capitalised. They probably feel it’s reached World War levels they’re so hyperbolic.

Are they going to apply the same principles to their clients? My client said something I didn’t like so I’m not going to let them stand up in court and defend themselves?

I can't get any comment through moderation under this article, it's bizzare. I'm not trying to say anything that would be against the guidelines.

Well said Floral

@Hoardasurass

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

I do wonder why intelligent people with such a broad overview support this....

I can entirely understand why some trans women want this pushed and pushed so it becomes law before anyone really understands.... And others who are heavily invested (susie green, for instance) but aren't there people who think blimey! If I support this and put my name to it, they will come for me when it goes wrong!!

I do wonder why intelligent people with such a broad overview support this....

Because they're being lied to, consistently. The only conversion therapy that happens in the UK is religiously motivated. It's fuck all to do with actual accredited therapists. It's either deliverance sessions and ongoing prayer and accountability partners, or it's 'counselling sessions' which are more of the same but with a very slight veneer of cod-psychology. It only occurs among lesbian, gay and bisexual people connected to religion.

It's obviously horrible, harmful and stupid, and if you want to effectively stop it, you'd legislate to insist that those who put up a 'counselling' facade adhere to a code of practice and be licensed, which would root out most of the practitioners. But that's not what Stonewall et al are campaigning for, because they don't actually give a shit, they just want to prevent any alternatives to the lucrative Genderist machine.

Which is why the fuckers are using the experiences of those who have faced gay conversion therapy, be it in a religious setting, or 50 years ago when it was still accepted as a psychology method, as a propaganda tool. No one supports that kind of abuse. Right thinking people will happily oppose it.

But Stonewall are lying, because that's not what their proposals are talking about. I am, as you might imagine, livid at my suffering being used as a propaganda tool to put lots and lots of possibly lesbian or gay young people at risk of facing a conversion therapy even worse than mine, because it will damage their physical bodies as well as their minds.

'I do wonder why intelligent people with such a broad overview support this....

Because they're being lied to, consistently.'

I am so sorry about your horrible experiences, FloralBunting.

Thing is, I know I am being lied to and I can see the contradiction in this sudden faux regard for converstion therapy..... I am not a barrister or scientist, I just read and follow up some of the things I read, it is not too hard to join up the dots.

Why are so many people being willfully blind? Don't they understand that someone will have to be held liable for these harms when they finally surface.

Who do they think that will be?

Why are so many people being willfully blind? Don't they understand that someone will have to be held liable for these harms when they finally surface.

Who do they think that will be?

I think more people than we realize will not investigate further than the surface. It's very, very common for people to see an academic-looking link and not even bother clicking, instead just accepting that it has some authority. That's the case with members of the public, and I have no reason whatsoever to assume it is different with professionals of any stripe.

There's usually not even any malice involved there, people have busy, overwhelming lives, they mostly want to do the right thing, and they're being told by Stonewall and all the self-identified 'good people' (there are lots of 'progressive' church groups pushing this too) that this is wholly good and the only opposition is from American Conservative Evangelical Christians.