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.

They're still on this issue of 'support' and whether it means 'belief in GC views' or it means 'support for GC feminism'.

This is what they are going for isn't it:

• gc feminists have organised themselves into groups campaigning on womens rights
• the groups are mostly attended by women
• but that's because they are about women's rights
• therefore that can't be taken as evidence that gender critical feminists are more likely to be female, only that those who attend women's rights meetings are female
• therefore there's no evidence the gc feminists are more likely to be female.
• in fact the yougov evidence is that the beliefs on policy positions are mostly shared by men.

You can bet that if men had been just as concerned about all this we would have been taken seriously and there would be no need for all the crowd funded cases.

Is their argument that there exist a large set of gender critical people who are not politically engaged (who might be mostly men). - They are rather shooting themselves in the foot there!

FFS they do not understand the statistical proposition at all! Kudos to Dr Green for trying to clarify...

It's so frustrating because we can make the points here easily but under pressure and being cross examined by an expert barrister I can imagine it is very difficult.

It's a nonsense argument. Gender benefits men.

They really think that gender critical just means anti trans.

After all this time. All these words!

They are trying to separate GC from feminism aren't they. - not understanding that GC beliefs are fundamental to our feminism

They seem to think that '99% of GC feminists are women' is the same as '99% of women are GC feminists'.

I don't see there being a cunning strategy here, I think it's simply to make AB's witnesses look like they're making assertions based on a biased reading of incomplete sets of data, in order to making AB's case look weak.

Has anyone else's session frozen?

If you remember Jane Russell was the cross examining barrister for CGD in Maya's first tribunal and appeal I think.

It's so frustrating because we can make the points here easily but under pressure and being cross examined by an expert barrister I can imagine it is very difficult.

To be fair I think Dr Green is doing better under pressure than I can do here, anonymously, eating chocolate eggs and with my toddler safely asleep. 😀

Thats why they are trying to separate gender criticism out from feminism in general I suppose. Hence the need to define it as something else, i.e. anti-trans.

uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-equality-watchdog-thinks-legal-090638652.html

She should mention MN. Overwhelmingly female.

This is clear is mud mixing "gender critical feminists", and "supporters of gender critical views", and then conflating that with people not being supportive of trans rights (whatever that might mean).

However, making things as clear as mud is exactly what counsel for GCC want to do. To be fair challenging the evidence of the other side is key to their role.

Yes. I'm pretty certain that Justine is on record saying that the entire site is mostly women. Given that they don't appear to accept the evidence of everybody's eyes and ears.

I love this salvo that there might be thousands of male people giving themselves fake female names in order to subscribe to newsletters about women's rights.

Credible. Very credible.

'First name theory.'

Some of these questions are so stupid.
I think Dr Green is struggling not to roll her eyes :D

I know they need to try and discredit the witnesses, but I think it's a pretty poor tactic trying to claim that feminism isn't largely supported by females! And criticism of gender stereotypes which oppress women, isn't largely supported by women, too.

i'm assuming that the judge think the same.

If you remember Maya's tribunal some of the questions and assertions were eye rollingly stupid but the judge still bought it, so who knows.

It's my impression that GCC counsel are arguing on the basis that "gender critical views" is a different thing to feminism and is more akin to "anti-trans".

'I know they need to try and discredit the witnesses, but I think it's a pretty poor tactic trying to claim that feminism isn't largely supported by females!'

Gender critical feminism is a more specific thing than the movement that calls itself feminism, though. There is a wide movement that calls itself 'feminism', which includes a lamentable number of people who don't seem to agree that they are trying to say anything about females. :)

This woman has extreme Dolores Umbridge vibes