Stonewall leader wants dog and mum to sit next to him in court

[SirSamVimesCityWatch]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ac2b7ca0-d14b-11ec-9d8b-0826aa666f4f?shareToken=6cd74df5c3fb3a78e78a8281986c6794

And a support worker as well. Utterly ridiculous. Apparently a last minute request as well.

I know this is likely to be covered in the ongoing threads following Allison Bailey's courtcase, but this seemed sufficiently bonkers to warrant its own thread!!

Does KM think SW is going to look after him? Is it fuck.

Quite. I'm really unimpressed with Stonewall as an organisation - obviously for the ludicrous gender woo, but then for looking like they are trying to pin senior policy decisions onto a single, vulnerable individual.

I don't begrudge KM his support dog and mum. If I was put in that position by my employer in a trial with this much public interest, I'd be absolutely bricking it and looking for any support I could get. The amount of cognitive dissonance that he must be feeling after presumably being first praised and encouraged and then blamed and scapegoated is significant.

Well it annoyed the Romans. Those long winter evenings with all the mistletoe must have simply flown by.

I was actually thinking of something more recent. But yes, fuck the Roman and all blokes crowbarring their way into women's stuff.

Sex doesn't change through the life cycle. Products of your own mind, such as gender, can obviously change as easily as your favourite colour or rock band.

And I reserve my sympathy for those children with autism who have been conned into thinking their discomfort or feelings of difference mean they're 'in the wrong body'. Shame on the people who mislead them.

😀
I want one too, and would like to send one to every woman currently being being harassed by misogynists.

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Kirrin, whose mental health difficulties obviously make Kirrin unsuitable for that job. People need to learn to accept that disabilities mean they may not be fit for some kinds of jobs and not expect allowances to be made. Of course this whole farrago suits SW: a malleable individual who also has 'poor me' value.

My 11 year old niece was to be a witness/victim in a case (they eventually pled guilty at last minute). Precovid. Arrangements were put in place for her to be cross examined by video link from the video link room in the court building. In that room would have been a court worker and a standard victim support worker (ie from the victim support service not one chosen by her). It was made clear her mum would not be allowed in the room with her. She was also told if she needed a break then she had to request it as noone else could interrupt the questioning. Why was she expected to manage so unsupported compared to this individual?

On the other hand as far as the dog is concerned, we have no idea what pets may be in the room with other witnesses and a well behave dog asleep beside a witness on a zoom is neither here nor there.

I wonder how many senior HR people are choking on their tea at the batshittery of all this and quietly reconsidering their association with stonewall.

I disagree. Why should people with autism be excluded from participating in life like everyone else? We might need adjustments to do so and the law allows this.

The issue comes when a disability inhibits your ability to do the job despite reasonable adjustments. In this case the problem was not the supporting cast, though they really should have made this known in advance etc. The problem is with their ability to apply critical thinking, to consider other perspectives (women), to distinguish fact from fantasy.

It reminds of someone talking about getting people with learning disabilities into parliament as MPs. Sorry no, I want MPs to be able to quickly and proficiently weigh up very complex matters with rapidly developing situations and large amounts of new information. I want them be flexible enough to consider points raised in debates. As such I think learning disabilities should prevent you standing as an MP. (Yes, I recognise many current MPs can't do this but I think that is a problem)

Just a few points about having a support dog in court
As much as I can appreciate how this would help with anxiety ...
I hope nobody who was in that court room suffered with allergy asthma
Dogs can bring on a nasty asthma attack in some people
Also, who would take the dog outside, should it wish to relieve itself
Maybe someone was allocated that special job ...
Can you imagine, having to stop court business and wait for the dog to do its own business!

I really hate this idea you can do whatever you want and be whoever you want to be. You can't. Life isn't like that and people with any kind of disability know that more than most.

Some facts make you unsuitable for certain jobs. I'd love to be a tennis champion, that's all I've ever wanted to be, but I'm fat and middle-aged and have no noticeable athletic talent (and didn't even when young and slender). No, I can't do that job, I can't just identify into it. No matter how many adjustments are made.

If I demanded that I do that job, everyone else would have to make so many adjustments that it would substantially harm their ability to be themselves and in fact prevent even the possibility of them being exactly what they wanted to be and achieving what they wanted to achieve. The opposition would have to lie down on the grass for a substantial part of the match and do nothing for me to even have a chance at winning.

Making 'reasonable adjustments' surely means adjustments that can be made without massively disadvantaging everyone else?

And I reserve my sympathy for those children with autism who have been conned into thinking their discomfort or feelings of difference mean they're 'in the wrong body'.

Maybe that includes Kirrin, if he/she/they’s a transman. (Is that the case? I find it harder to tell that way round, as female transitioners tend to look like slightly beardy adolescent boys.) I think anyone who has made permanent body changes in pursuit of the ideology is going to find it agonizingly difficult to change tack, or to see that there were other possible options.

Maybe that includes Kirrin, if he/she/they’s a transman.

Not a "trans man" per se. Non binary female sexed person who considers themself "trans masculine".

I'm not trying to be uncaring but if you are unable to cope with the stresses work throws at you and need emotional support humans to undertake your duties, you need to be in a less stressful environment. How could any organisation be expected to facilitate support humans. They are not employees, how does that work for insurance, confidentiality and all the other aspects of employment.

I also wonder who the support worker was who didn't want to be seen on camera. Might have entirely innocent reasons for wanting to protect their privacy of course. But it leaves the suspicion that they may have been someone who viewers would have recognised and whose presence would have been questioned.

The fact that they left rather than be seen on camera is rather sinister to me. There is every chance that the "support person" could have been someone from SW who was there to ensure Kirrin stuck to the script. Let's not forget that poor woman in the US during Covid court proceedings where they realised her abuser was in the house with them.

Being even more cynical, if SW cared for KM's mental health at all they'd have first clarified exactly what support was appropriate, and then agreed it with the tribunal. The farce that ensued was most likely quite distressing and not the best way to start as a witness but conveniently created a side circus for SW.

I'm really unimpressed with Stonewall as an organisation - obviously for the ludicrous gender woo, but then for looking like they are trying to pin senior policy decisions onto a single, vulnerable individual.

Except that he's [?] a Director - this suggests a level of responsibility and seniority. I would expect a Director to report directly to the CEO, be part of senior management team, and participate in the decisions taken by the team, both strategic and operational.

Certainly, that's the way it works in my workplace (a university).

I'm a believer in cock up rather than conspiracy, though, and I think this is just more of the same cock up instigated by Ruth Hunt and her colleagues - and I presume one of those senior colleagues is Medcalf. I think that several decisions they made way back when re focusing on the trans, have snowballed. I imagine SW may well be thinking that a lot of what's going on now are unintended consequences.

But they are all individually and collectively, responsible for these consequences, whether intended or not.

Simon Edge's novel about all this is both hilarious and chilling. His ending is far more optimistic than I feel we can be, but it is a ray of hope. And he skewers the situation of the last couple of years brilliantly.

If only we had been more vigilant in, say 2010, when Professor Germaine Greer was standing up against a transwoman being given a post at Newnham which to that point had been single sex ... I agreed with her then, but it wasn't the kind of national debate it is now. Although she got denounced for not #beingkind

@Mandodari being a witness in court isn't in the usual proceedings of most people's jobs. Don't judge all autistic people by the actions of one in exceptional circumstances.

Also another autistic person has been referred to as "extremely vulnerable" in proceedings today. He is a barrister.

KM is a Head Of, not a director. I would assume they report into a director - have skimmed the "Who we are" Stonewall web page and would guess they report into the Director of Programmes, or if not then perhaps the Director of Communications and External Affairs.

I do get the impression that it's cock-ups all the way down. I also think they are all true believers surrounded by other true believers, existing in an echo chamber. Anyone not on board would have quietly left by now. The leadership and trustees seem to be on the young side. They may genuinely have thought that KM would be a good witness and not have realised that the various support beings should be OKd by the court. I don't imagine they take very kindly to the idea that anyone's stated needs should have to be gatekept by anyone else, not when that person is on the side of the angels doing God's work anyway.

Oh, right thanks @SpringBadger - I'm just catching up here intermittently, so got that wrong.

But I still think to describe KM's witness appearance as part of a SW conspiracy is too strong - it's a whole lot of smug echo chamber stuff, of course, but I think it's all terrible, awful incompetence, and smugness. You only had to hear Nancy Kelley on Woman's Hour, or Ruth Hunt et al. to realise they are all so sure they are right, we're transphobes and bigots, and they are doing - as you say - God's work.

Agreed, @ExMachinaDeus .

I don’t know about Germaine Greer, but the appointment of a transwoman at Newnham was some time in the 1990s.

@JulesRimetStillGleaming
I have spent most of my career in the tech sector and have worked with many people on the spectrum so, please do not tell me I am being judgmental. I was replying to a comment that work places needed to adjust and pointing out that for most, allowing staff to have a support person with them in order to perform duties was unfeasible. Presumably in the case of KM, he was eligible to have either a union or HR rep present. Expecting, at 34, to be allowed to bring your Mam to work is unreasonable.