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.

Thanks @TheBiologyStupid

As always with rollonfriday, read the comments.

I've been a little obsessed with the Roll On Friday forum in the last few weeks. There's quite the battle on there between GC and TRA views.

Surely a YouGov poll will reflect whatever the group that commissions it wants.

The woolly question about being able to "self identify as a gender different to the one you were born as" as mentioned was from Pink News.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703342598893568?s=20&t=gb3uAnBs5RjfjQgvbIgvCQ

The specific YouGov poll mentioned was June 2020. There have been others.

@JustHereWithMyPopcorn

Does anyone know how long ago that YouGov poll was done?

2020 I think.

"As an example of the heated views, ROF was directed to the Twitter account of an Osborne Clarke gender identity policy representative, where they had accused JK Rowling of carrying out a "relentless campaign of hate" against trans people, and ‘liked’ a reply to their tweet which stated of the author, "She's an absolute cunt and I for one would love to personally kick her wormy uterus"."

That is absolutely vile and I can't understand how someone can tweet that as a representative of a workplace - a law firm, no less! - and still keep their job.

"Heated" is not the word. Time to start calling out aggressively violent misogyny for what it is.

@PrelateChuckles "That is absolutely vile and I can't understand how someone can tweet that as a representative of a workplace - a law firm, no less! - and still keep their job.

"Heated" is not the word. Time to start calling out aggressively violent misogyny for what it is. "

Absolutely - who would want to approach that "gender identity representative" if they were unhappy with the firm's Stonewalled policy?

Time to call out just plain unacceptable, bad behaviour and to accept as a society that shame and boundaries have their place and need bringing back. Because otherwise some people who are not able to self monitor or be responsible of their own accord will make society a bloody miserable place for everyone else.

The yougov poll has been good for us gc's. It's useful as it shows that ppl are willing to support trans rights, and to let ppl self identify their gender (ie they sign up to the top level vague ideas) but when you actually stipulate any practicalities they are much jess likely to be on board. And if you tell ppl the hypothetical tw still has male genitals, in all demographics, they are not on board. But men are less on board than women, it's true.

This won't matter unless Allison can show she was discriminated against because of her gc feminists beliefs. I guess the more serious danger is if she can't demonstrate that the loss of work resulted from the complaints about her. Keeping my fingers crossed for her.

I am so relieved to hear she was at the hearing so must be feeling much better.

Absolutely. I'm sick to death of the misogynistic free-for-all that has taken over our lands under this fucking government.

It really IS a miserable place to live in now. I'm so bloody sick of 'inclusive' meaning that women have to walk on eggshells to get through the day without being denounced. I'm not a danger to anyone. I'm an asset to the community ffs. But I'm wary ... nervous ... constantly judging the risk if I even just express myself in lawful terms.

Thank god we have each other.

I think the poll shows a lot of ignorance. Its 'headline' findings appear to hint at a majority assumption amongst respondents that TW = someone who's undergone surgical reassignment, which of course is very much a minority of TW.

The women's sport finding is interesting, with the majority view, regardless of age, sex, political persuasion, etc appearing to be that there's little to no place for TW in women's sport.

PrelateChuckles that is vile I agree I cannot see how a law firm representative can tweet something like that publicly with no repercussions

Pretty straight forward and informative report from the guardian.
www.theguardian.com/law/2022/apr/29/barrister-allison-bailey-stonewall-discriminated-against-for-gender-critical-views-tribunal-hears?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1651237602

One of the changes in the last few months is that the issues are being covered by a broad range of journalists- not just a handful of feminists or lgbt issues reporters. It's a good sign, and it leads to more balanced & factual reports. I've been reading for 4 years and it's frustrating that they are only just taking an interest but they are finally. Well done women who've pushed it to the fore, including Allison.

Yes, it's refreshing to see a report in the Guardian from a UK-based uncaptured legal correspondent.

Since the proceedings are going ahead I assume Allison Bailey will be giving evidence soon and I'm hoping that a sensible and practical decision was made to change the order of the witnesses meaning she will get the benefit of having recovery time over the long bank holiday weekend.

They'll have to prove that by giving examples of GC mens groups then, won't they.

Are there any??

That's been a very instructive 'showing of the hand' by GCC prior to the long weekend break.

They'll have to prove that by giving examples of GC mens groups then, won't they.

I can only think of one, the one Michael Conroy set up, but that was actually focussed on supporting women and being better men.

What are you?

A Rabbitologist?

The more they push the line that the GC position is so widely held that must have lots of silent supporters (who attend no meetings and contribute to no crowdfunders), the harder it will be for them to make the case that Allisons views were so problematic they had to act in the way they did

Permanently baffled at how they've managed to convince themselves that women don't want rights or equality, that this business about them wanting rights is a group of (insert slurs and reasons why they're subhuman here, white, Christian, etc) men who are out to get them for no apparent reason.

It's just mind boggling. These are not well people.

The more they push the line that the GC position is so widely held that must have lots of silent supporters (who attend no meetings and contribute to no crowdfunders), the harder it will be for them to make the case that Allisons views were so problematic they had to act in the way they did

Yes, they are running the risk of catching themselves in their own trap.

Yup. They're saying, oh <shrug> everyone feels like this, and that's why Allison had to be punished.

Completely fucking bonkers.

‘A Rabbitologist?’

I didn’t have a word for what I was but that sounds right.

I've just re-read the complaints from Stonewall and Allison's rebuttal of them.

They really are mindbogglingly lame. Not to mention inaccurate - claiming she called Morgan Page a man, when she said male bodied. I mean it's right there in black-and-white, and they still used it as part of their submission.

And complaining about what Allison said constituted the workshop on the cotton ceiling. When again, it's right there in black-and-white 'overcoming sexual barriers'. Not exactly open to lots of interpretations is it?

And now wanting to invent a massive male cohort who are gender critical to imply that it's not discriminatory on the basis of sex. Or sexual orientation. When they liken lesbians to racists!

I really hope Ben Cooper asks them to define homosexuality.