Helen Joyce on Catherine McGahey and lesbians' sexual boundaries

[EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]

Thoughtful Helen Joyce piece in which she brings her characteristic forensic self to an area that is much in need of some clarity.

Barrister Cathryn McGahey likened Allison Bailey’s sexual orientation—that of a female exclusively attracted to females—to the male sexism that holds women back in the workplace, and to the racism of the white supremacists who fought to sustain apartheid.

I had intended to write something else this week, but then Catherine McGahey QC, of Garden Court Chambers and a former vice-chair of the Bar Standards Board, gave evidence in the hearing of Allison Bailey’s case against her barristers’ chambers, Garden Court, and Stonewall, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, sexuality and gender-critical belief. And what she said was even more extraordinary than the ramblings of Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall’s head of trans inclusion, two weeks ago (here’s the issue where I focus on what Medcalf said, and the highlights of her testimony on Sex Matters’ website). And so I decided to change tack.

…

When I sat down to write this, I knew that I would be angry and distressed. In her evidence under oath, McGahey analogised three situations, repeatedly and in detail: women attempting to rise in their careers against male opposition; black South Africans fighting for full civil rights; and men who think of themselves as women trying to get lesbians to accept them as sexual partners. The glass ceiling; apartheid; the cotton ceiling—three barriers she framed as similar, with oppressed people on one side and oppressors on the other. This puts Bailey—a black lesbian and survivor of sexual assault who rose from humble origins to high in a respected profession—on the same side as men who think women aren’t up to senior jobs, and white supremacists.

www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-7/

Thanks OP for linking this.

Thanks for the link, EmbarassingHadrosaurus. It's really clearly written and very helpful if you aren't altogether familiar with the arguments.

How can you compare an individual's sexual preferences to systematic state sponsored denial of civil and political rights? I actually think it's even more offensive to do this to a black woman because it implies that Allison Bailey would have been complicit with the apartheid regime.

Discussed here (along with other stuff).

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8_u1MQFjxvI

I had to pinch myself reading through that link, thanks for posting here OP.
To think that lesbians are being told they must believe a man when he tells them that he is really a woman and that their refusal to date means they need to rethink their sexual boundaries and genital preferences.
This world gets crazier every day. Beam me up Scottie, I'm on the wrong planet.

The two Helens discuss Allison Bailey's tribunal from about min 21.

And Catherine McGahey's testimony from 24mins on:

There's a later discussion of Kirrin Medcalfe.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus Thank you.

You're welcome: that was a thoughtful chat that they had and I admire Helen Joyce's clarity of thought and expression.

Wish I could order my thoughts and express them as clearly as Helen Joyce does. By contrast there is some very sloppy thing there from Ms McGahey. The Riley J Dennis videos she highlighted are what actually peaked me. And Magdalen Berns response of course !

I just read the whole thing, and cannot believe that this is being argued in a court of law. The mental contortions, the RIDICULOUS nature of the claims has STUNNED me.

Me too. I am just flabbergasted.

I just read the whole thing, and cannot believe that this is being argued in a court of law. The mental contortions, the RIDICULOUS nature of the claims has STUNNED me.

It was truly remarkable. I could not quite believe that Catherine McGahey's rhetoric was being delivered as her considered position by the VC of the Ethics Committee of the Bar Standards Board.

However, today, I can say that Catherine McGahey's performance was rivalled for an implacable sense of righteousness and DARVO rhetoric by the evidence delivered by Judge Michelle Brewer under cross-examination.

I don't know who will write up Michelle Brewer's contribution but there were times when it left the listeners so aghast that it was difficult to know just where and how to comment.

But if the definition of lesbian in the EA2010 is same sex attracted (and I believe it is) then surely a 'cotton ceiling workshop' is discriminatory conversion therapy - because you're trying to persuade and strategize someone out of their sexuality.

And under the new conversion therapy law, the workshop would surely be illegal?

I have to admit that after following along with Benjamin Boyce's 2-parter with Ben GNC Centric.. I have to recuse myself from commenting on MP or the workshop as I would be intemperate. (Yes, Allison Bailey's tribunal has prompted me to be mindful of my words. Although I'm now aware that I could argue for them to mean something else altogether. Especially if it were a Friday, or I were travelling/on holiday/busy/thinking about buying Christmas presents.)

Ben GNC Centric is a lesbian and previously identified as transgender. In this interview with Benjamin Boyce, she highlights important issues (based on her experiences) within the community when the relevance of age, sex and their attendant power asymmetries are disregarded in a frankly disturbing way that recalls Sheila Jeffreys and her work on sex castes. (Middleaged transwomen led and spoke over them at 'youth gatherings' and told them to shut up and listen because transwomen are the apex of the oppression hierarchy, and teenage transboys are somehow at the bottom. Morgan Page was a leader of a youth group Ben attended.)

4thwavenow.com/2019/01/26/my-trans-youth-group-experience-with-morgan-page/

'Coercion & Abuse in the Gender ID Community'
14 Mar 2019

I got deleted?
Bloody hell.

Am I at least allowed to say that imo lesbians should not be called bigots for not wanting intimate contact with biologically male genitalia and that same sex attraction should be respected and that lesbians have the absolute, unquestionable right to reject sexual contact with people who have external genitalia that includes an organ with erectile tissue that engorges with blood when aroused, reaching a length of 5, 6 or even 7 inches or more, purely on the grounds that they do not under any circumstances want sexual contact with a person who has that aforementioned genitalia and that preference is in no way similar to apartheid.

Apartheid FFS. 🤦

I would also like to point out that the term I used is one regularly used by TRAs as part of their insistence that we accept that organ as female when the person it's attached to says it is!

I first saw Ben GNC Central on The Mess We're In a couple of years back. It was quite staggering - men accusing lesbians of exercising male privilege ffs. She is a good witness and very grounded. No wonder the TRAs try to silence detransitioners.

I haven't seen that episode, thank you for the pointer.

And under the new conversion therapy law, the workshop would surely be illegal?

You would think.

And a lesbian’s knickers are just another barrier, with no consideration of the difference between the woman whose sexual organs they cover, and the man who wants them out of the way so he can penetrate her.

The stark truth in this is so chilling.

I watched the two Helens at silly o'clock this morning when i couldn't sleep. They didn't help me go to sleep 😫 but they did make me laugh, most of the time in utter exasperation at the idiocy of all of this. But Helen J does get one thing wrong in her write up: she says McGahey was giving evidence in April when it was only a couple of days back in May.

I just don't get this. For me, you can choose/refuse sexual partners for absolutely any reason you like. That can be their genitals, their personality, the colour of their hair, their race, weight, anything (I don't believe that if you don't fancy someone of a particular race that makes you racist, nor that if you don't want to sleep with someone ginger, or fat, or thin or whatever, then you're prejudiced, it's a sexual partner not job discrimination).

it's a sexual partner not job discrimination

Right. Individuals have a fundamental right to associate with whomever they choose. They are not an employer, or a service-provider.

Individuals' rights have to be protected against malpractice from organisations. They have more rights than organisations.

Individuals do not have more rights than individuals. Different individuals rights need to be balanced.

And on basic bodily autonomy grounds, one person's desire for sex is trumped by another person's desire to not have sex with them. Sorry.

Just read the whole article. Wow, just wow.
I am not even a lesbian and I am so tired of this shit. You think it's bad and it just gets worse.

I’m about 90% lesbian, and I’m beyond tired of this shit … I’m fucking angry about it. Very angry 😡