Mermaids is taking LGBA to court.

[WarriorN]

On twitter: "Mermaids is taking us to court to try to strip us of our charitable status. If successful, it means important films like this will not be made."

m.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf1gPZaBWg

See twitter for digging.

Sonia Sodah

https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1553049400150212608?s=21&t=CY-R0FcHXU0LrvSgPe0tdQ

This will be an interesting case to keep an eye on, hearing 9-15 September. You’d think Mermaids might be reflecting on their role in perpetrating failings in children’s healthcare - instead they’re going after the charitable status of another charity that disagrees with them

Both LGB Alliance and the Charity Commission are challenging whether Mermaids’ standing to bring this case

To me, it has echoes of the police knocking on the doors of people who’ve expressed perfectly lawful gender critical beliefs online to warn them off - a charity going after another’s charitable status because they have a different worldview to them. Let’s see what happens.

This one is seeking more detail about the service, reply awaited.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/nhsserviceeforprovisionnof_mas#incoming-2073681

It's worth having a browse through the FOI requests occasionally, I am also eagerly awaiting the reply from NHS England regarding their definition of a woman.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/definitionoffwomangenderrsex#incoming-2065542

(I'm also rather sad that NHS England has no answer for the enquiry about the number of flip flop related accidents...)

They're really on the ropes now aren't they, Mermaids?

I wonder if the realisation will ever hit as to how much damage they've done to gay people and women?

I did some gardening for this one. It's the first time I have gardened. I can see this becoming a trend.

i've copied this from another thread. It would appear that the Allison Bailey tribunal made the following beliefs legally protected.

And it's my understanding, that order to be legally protected they need to meet certain strict criteria. It can't just be any old willy nilly belief.

"The first respondent" being stonewall.

Paragraph (f) makes it quite clear that the belief that Stonewall no longer support homosexuality is protected.

Therefore shouldn't LGBA be considered a perfectly legitimate organisation to take its place?

(e) Gender theory as proselytised by the First Respondent is severely detrimental to lesbians. In reclassifying “sex” with “gender”, the First Respondent has reclassified homosexuality from “same sex attraction” to “same gender attraction”. The result of this is that heterosexual men who identify as trans women and are sexually attracted to women are to be treated as lesbians. There is therefore an encouragement by followers of gender theory (including the First Respondent) on lesbians to have sex with male-bodied people. To reject this encouragement is to be labelled as bigoted. This is inherently homophobic because it denies the reality and legitimacy of same sex attraction and invites opprobrium and threatening behaviour upon people who recognise that reality and legitimacy.


(f) It is particularly damaging to lesbians that the First Respondent has taken this position. The First Respondent had been the foremost gay and lesbian rights campaigning organisation in the UK and one of the world’s leading such organisations. The adoption of gender theory by the First Respondent therefore left those gay, lesbian and bisexual people who did not ascribe to gender theory without the representation that the First Respondent had previously provided, and left those people labelled as bigots by their primary representative organisation.


Paragraph 293 of the judgement says: “We concluded that all the claimant’s pleaded beliefs, not just the belief that woman is sex not gender, are protected”.


So everything in Para 279 is now a protected belief. Some victory for Stonewall!

Fingers crossed.

Unfortunately it means mermaids have a belief system too.

However, the affirmative model can be shown to be harmful so hopefully eventually this will mean more move away from them.

This is the bit that really interests me. I was a trustee of a niche charity that had, amongst many things, a commercial subsidiary. The subsidiary got into some bother and, in a normal commercial environment, would have kicked off a litigation process to protect its rights. However the trustees of the charitable parent had to think long and hard (and take professional advice) about whether it was appropriate to risk charitable funds in any form of litigation and whether that litigation was in line with the charitable objectives. The conclusion was not to go ahead largely based on very strong advice from specialist charity lawyers. I can’t square that debate with the behaviour of Stonewall, Mermaids, et al in all manner of things.

But this is one of the cornerstones of the issue: that once TQ+ activism has become involved, there is an expectation that all usual considerations, limits and boundaries and do not apply.

We've seen a lot in the past two weeks that boundaries are being re asserted and the response is that yes, yes those boundaries and policies apply equally to everyone and this group is not exempt. But the behaviour in this case is based on the same expectation of being a special exception, and being enabled in that expectation.

Precisely. They will be working according to what they think the law should be, not what it is. That's understandable; many of us are shocked when we discover how limited our legal rights are in certain situations but that's why we involve lawyers who should advise according to actual law not just tell us what we want to hear. Of course there is then also the question of whether or not you listen to that advice.

One of my favourite FOI requests was to Network Rail and they wanted to know if there had been any accidents at Kings Cross, between Platforms 9 and 10.

Seemed a bit terfy to me. 😉

Does anyone ever know of another situation where a charity has tried taking the charity commission to court for allowing another charity to exist?

Probably not, Donut...

I can't imagine any other charity possessing that level of narcissism.

So much so, that they'll spend good money telling tales to the metaphorical headteacher
^
Miss, Miss! LGBA were talking during quiet time!
^
🤨

ikr

To be clear, the wording cited in e) and f) is from Allison Bailey's further revised amended particulars of claim and reproduced in the Tribunal's judgement. The Tribunal didn't have to decide whether or not it agreed with her beliefs when ruling that they are protected.

Susie Green did what she thought was right for her child, and in this instance it was the right choice as Jackie was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria at a very young age, and Jackie is now happy and living her best life. But we should not dismiss that this is because her mum travelled halfway across the world and was in a position to pay for the best possible team to do her surgery.

Susie Green is using the exception of her daughter as if it is the rule. She wants us to allow our young children to decide their gender and if as parents we do not immediately affirm their choice we are bigots and transphobes. We don’t allow children to decide what they are going to eat for dinner let alone make life altering decisions at age 4.

The whole narrative telling parents that if they don’t affirm, their child will become suicidal is utterly despicable. Susie Green has been using this as her mantra since a doctor said the same thing to her.

It is also very telling that Mr. Green was not on board with his ‘son’ playing with ‘girls’ toys or dressing as a girl. However, once he became a she, all was good as he now had a straight daughter rather than a gay son. Make if that what you will.

Yes…. One would have to question just what Gender Jackie would have grown as if at that very young age that young child was left to be free to actually explore their interests without a clearly homophobic influence.

@Eightiesfan Of course 'Jackie' was happier 'as a girl'.

He could now play with the toys he wanted, for a start. Let's not underestimate that^^ for a little kid.
He'd also be well aware of tensions between his parents possibly being abated. The topic of 'what are we going to do with him' was rife in the house.
Mr Green 'blamed' his wife for their son being gender non-conforming.

And he was frequently told that he was much happier now.

SG's Ted Talk is heartbreaking, but not for the reasons she thinks.

He didn't have gender dysphoria, he had a homophobic father.

Great minds @Helleofabore !

Yes, the belief is protected. It's not endorsed.

But in order to be protected, it has to meet certain criteria, I believe.

One of which is something like being reasonable, and of course another, more well known one because of Maya, is that it's worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Although, obviously, the tribunal didn't have to agree with the beliefs, the fact that they thought they were reasonable and should be respected, cant help mermaids when they are trying to claim that setting up a charity for gay people, separate to trans people, is wrong.

I know they are trying to say, somehow, that the LGBA are taking something away from mermaids. But, given the protected belief that the hitherto gay charity stonewall, is now a trans charity, it would make the need for the LGBA that much more important.

This is going to hurt Mermaids. They've already fucked up so many times, people will wonder why they're suing another charity for gay people.

Some despicable replies to Sonia Sodah's tweet, inevitably.

Yes. And a mother who appeared to believe that gender stereotypes were innate.

Her tEDTalk revealed all the prejudices in that family.

She is quite upfront about her child having all their dolls taken away, and asking a grandparent for a doll for Christmas, but not to mention it to mummy or daddy.

I can't imagine what it does to a child to have all their dolls taken away! I still mourn the loss of a teddy thrown out without my knowledge.

There is no medical basis for a child being the opposite sex inside. It doesn't exist.

So that's where you have to start.

Susie Green did what she thought was right for her child, and in this instance it was the right choice as Jackie was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria at a very young age, and Jackie is now happy and living her best life.

Do we know that for sure?

Ideally this action might prompt the Charity Commission to take a long hard look at Mermaids.

Long overdue.

I wonder whether Jackie would ever be allowed to be anything but publicly happy with their situation.

Their mother is so deeply invested that it would seem to be an impossible thought that Jackie could be anything but happy.