Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

[ickky]

The Tribunal started 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.

When joining the live tribunal please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Thread 1 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

Transwomen have been using women's bathrooms for a long time and as far as I am aware, perfectly peacefully.

The trouble started I think when Stonewall opened the floodgates and autogynephilic males started using them. Who needed females participation to satisfy their sexual fantasies. Women rightly objected.

Allison made some stellar points today, esp about stating the difference very clearly,that the original GRA was not designed for transvestites/crossdressers. Go Allison!

Sorry, cross post! But, worth saying twice....😁

‘The trouble started I think when Stonewall opened the floodgates and autogynephilic males started using them. Who needed females participation to satisfy their sexual fantasies.’

I feel like the trouble started when the figurative (‘born in the wrong body’ and ‘sex change’) was replaced with the literal (‘TWAW’) and as a consequence single sex spaces that women needed were colonised.

placemarking, and thank you.

And that includes the metaphorical ‘space’ of being a lesbian.

I've not been able to log in because of work and just wanted to say thank you for the threads. Alongside Twitter, they've been very helpful for keeping track.

I can never stand when it gets into the direct question of 'would YOU share a bathroom with...' because the very clear implication is 'are you a good girl?' and so many women rush to say yes, yes of course, in most/x circumstances I would do the right thing and put the male person's needs first! It's a question very definitely setting the moral right answer and challenging the woman to declare herself with risks for the wrong answer. It's not a neutral act.

Where is the reminder that no woman has the right to set boundaries for another, and there are women who cannot share with any male, regardless of how lovely they are? And that those female people should not be excluded from the female facilities for the better freedoms and happiness of male people, and those female people should not be put in the position of having to be afraid to be the one who says sorry, I am not as privileged as these females who can do mixed sex, sorry, this doesn't work for me, sorry, please dont call HR, call me names or try to get me sacked because I can't prioritise this male person's emotional needs unconditionally above my own need to pee sometimes. Please don't tell everyone I was raped/abused/am disabled/have a culture that doesn't fit with ultra liberal fashion, and have them order me to get over it because poor male person with needs.

What on earth is this other than sexism and a massive failure of inclusion and diversity working for anyone other than male people?

Just dropping in to say thank you to everyone who is contributing background info, analysis, links and insight into all these threads. I haven't commented before because it's so fast-moving but I'm enormously grateful to all the sharp minds of FWR for making it so much easier to follow Tribunal Tweets and make sense of what's going on.

Boundless admiration for Allison. She is indomitable.

‘Where is the reminder that no woman has the right to set boundaries for another, and there are women who cannot share with any male, regardless of how lovely they are?’

That’s true. Inclusion excludes people who have a legitimate need for single sex spaces.

Whole lot of worry on outing TW. Anyone seen any equal worry about outing female people needing single sex spaces for highly sensitive reasons?

I've not commented yet but have been following the threads daily. I wanted to thank everyone who has commented along with the trial, as I am unable to watch due to being in the office. It is fascinating so far.

.

Checking in. Thanks ickky

Thank you ickky!

Well done Allison. You are awesome.

Excellent post.

Well, Allison Bailey has been magnificent throughout this hearing but she was on fire today.

What a role model.

Thanks very much for the new thread and all the helpful comments.

@ickky "Well, Allison Bailey has been magnificent throughout this hearing but she was on fire today.
What a role model."

Indeed. Hochhauser showed his true colours in his last remarks.

I am sure I do not need to elaborate.

Like others I would also like to thank the posters here for keeping us up to date with what is going on and contributing background insights. Very much appreciated.

Hear, hear, Artichokeleaves! Everything you've just written.

Fwiw, I was a woman who, when I became aware of this debate several years ago, did not initially object to some feminine males in women's loos. I profess no religion and am very lucky not to have been the victim of serious sexual assault. I've always had lovely GNC men in my life. I didn't think about it much, but if I did I sort of thought, "Well, we should be kind."

It is only because male people took that kindness and stomped all over it, metaphorically, by declaring that women had no right to exclude any male person from female spaces and services, that I took a closer look.

Upon reflection, it seems clear to me that no male person, no matter how lovely, has the right to intrude in female spaces. My previous tolerance of some males in female spaces was the result of societal grooming which tells girls basically from birth onward to put male people's needs and wishes before ours. It was internalized misogyny and it was wrong.

This applies to all male people, even the nicest ones. I adore my dad, uncles, etc., and trust them completely, but would never want to share a lavatory or other vulnerable space with them. No woman or girl should be obliged to, either.

What was the point AH was trying to make with the toilet thing?

The whole cotton ceiling thing is basically incels on stilts - or do I mean high heels....?

Place marking. Thanks @ickky