Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing

[ickky]

The Tribunal will start on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

I have sent a request but haven't had anything back yet. Hopefully nearer the time.

There's a subtlety here that the cross-examination is deliberately missing. AH is seeking to undermine NW's assertion that women are more likely than men to be supporters of gender critical feminism than men, by saying that men seem to object more in the YouGov survery. The answer is that men are objecting more because they are less tolerant and not because they are gender critical.

Effectively, AH is misrepresenting what gender critical means but unfortunately this isn't being explored.

Second witness: Dr Green.

Well done, Dr Williams.

Dr Green next.

Someone should give the poor EJ a cough sweet.

The answer is that men are objecting more because they are less tolerant and not because they are gender critical.

In other words, women are more likely to internalise #bekind training.

Think Nic explains this point well

AH: no they can't. The Q re self ID is not ambiguous.
NW: No it's not at all. AH: Women are pro self ID of gender NW: as am I

Nic has always made a distinction between gender and sex. She says it's about bodies, which is always sex.

It's all a bit of a shambles, re the bundle and statements.

I don't understand the point of the YouGov data. Even if it is true that women tend to be more accepting of the idea that TWAW, it still can be true that women are more likely to be supporters of GC feminism.

If men are more GC than women then you can't have a claim of indirect sex discrimination if you are discriminated against for those beliefs. That's what's he's trying to do.

It's because it merges GC feminism into "anti-trans". I'd like to see AB's side explore how misleading this is.

But he is defining GC as being anti trans (essentially) @JulesRimetStillGleaming and Nic pushed against this

xpost

'If men are more GC than women then you can't have a claim of indirect sex discrimination if you are discriminated against for those beliefs. That's what's he's trying to do.'

You can if you can demonstrate that men are GC but they more often don't care enough to campaign on it. Women who are GC tend to campaign more because we are oppressed (we say) on the basis of sex.

Even if it is true that women tend to be more accepting of the idea that TWAW, it still can be true that women are more likely to be supporters of GC feminism.

I thought exactly this. It's like if 70% of Muslims were female, and 70% of Christians were female - they can both be true, they're not mutually exclusive! It's not the same as saying 70% of women are Christian, or Muslim. They seemed to be basing their argument on a misunderstanding of statistics.

It's a completely false argument. Women drive GC organisations and support crowd funds because they are concerned with women's human rights. Men in general who think gender identity is nonsense and dismiss it out of hand are not gender critical feminists.

It wasn't an "are you gender critical" poll. It was a poll asking a sample of the general population to give their view on a topical political issue.

Effectively, AH is misrepresenting what gender critical means but unfortunately this isn't being explored.
Yes. Presumably it will explored by AB's lawyers somehow.
Anyone can think male born ppl shouldn't be in female prisons and sports. Some ppl are campaigning on that because they've noticed the cause of such policies is a tendency to overwrite sex with gi in law & policy, and they disagree because they think women's oppression/disadvantage has largely been directed at their sex and if we lose sight of sex we won't be able to defend our rights. It's a branch of feminism so it's mostly women.

Even if it is true that women tend to be more accepting of the idea that TWAW, it still can be true that women are more likely to be supporters of GC feminism. Yes exactly.

The tra argument has always tried to ignore the distinctive feminist perspective so they don't have to address it, and lump us in with conservatives, traditionalists, and other randoms. Hopefully the tribunal will be forced to consider it as a particular perspective.

"'An end to violence against women' - that's a view that everyone can support that doesn't require a view on sex matters, isn't it?"

Clowns.

Anyone got a list of witnesses

Go on, Dr Green. That was a gotcha Ms Russell(?) walked into.

Lol... sex wasn't relevant for the suffragettes? Honestly mind boggling.

Exactly. I would love to see the public definition of what gender means in this context. Stereotypes imposed upon women to keep them down the hierarchy.

it would really expose why men saying that's not fair when they see a man in a female swimming race are not being gender critical.

Many suffragettes were also involved in the campaigns against the contagious diseases act. An understanding of sex was fundamental to their analysis

Suffragettes were criticising the stereotype that women can't be trusted with the vote. That's gender critical right there. This is the problem. Unless you understand what it all means, you can't make any sensible argument. And they're not.

They don't appear to understand the reasons for feminism in the first place.

Unsurprisingly.