Mermaids versus LGB alliance in court today??

[GrabbyGabby]

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/09/trans-charity-mermaids-appeal-lgb-alliance-status

Not sure if it is today or next week. Do we know if this is open like the tribunals?

You don't live in the real world do you?

The real world where reputations depend on more than superficial takes about non losses and rely on how those who watched the court case and reported it perceived Stonewall’s witnesses and the evidence of their communications?

The fact there are still posters who persist in focusing on spinning Stonewall’s performance as ‘win’, is great. It shows readers just how little those posters can interact outside a space where they are doggedly hanging on to the perception that Stonewall is not losing support and Stonewall’s guidance is not being considered as flawed in any way. Amongst other perceptions that are not shared by the UK population as a whole.

And the damage was still done.

Spin. Spin. Spin.

If people don't grasp the implications for Stonewall of Garden Chambers losing, then they are as thick as pig shit.

What can I say, plenty of people are thick as pig shit. 🤷‍♀️

Here's the whole thread, where that tweet is no. 5 .

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1552250836448837633?cxt=HHwWgoCwzav62YorAAAA

It followed these 4 tweets:

1/The Employment Tribunal found that Garden Court Chambers discriminated against me because of my gender critical belief when it published a statement that I was under investigation & in upholding Stonewall’s complaint against me.
#AllisonBaileyWins

2/The ET further found that GCC also victimised me by upholding the Stonewall Complaint because of my protected act: tweeting against the idea of the ‘Cotton Ceiling’ & about the appalling levels of fear and intimidation driving the Stonewall self ID agenda.

3/In doing so the tribunal held that my protected gender critical belief also included the belief that "gender identity theory as proselytised by Stonewall is severely detrimental" to women, and to lesbians.

4/The ET has ordered Garden Court Chambers to pay me damages, which include aggravated damages.

If she had 'lost', why would GCC have been ordered to pay her damages?

These are the next two tweets in that thread:

6/ Organisations who put ‘Stonewall Law’ before Equality Law or seek to silence others from lawfully voicing their criticism of Stonewall may be acting unlawfully & will suffer the consequences, even if Stonewall does not.

7/ My profound & heartfelt thanks to everyone of you who supported me. I did not win everything but I won enough. We did it. Thank you.

Tweet no.6 is particularly important regarding Stonewall. Organisations should not unthinkingly follow Stonewall 'advice', as it will ultimately be them who are held responsible for following it, not Stonewall.

Lol the idea that stonewall looked anything other than utter bellends when they’re head of trans inclusion appeared to give evidence with their support person, their support dog & their mum 😁

This is tweet 5 from the now deleted post I quoted:

5/I have lost my case against Stonewall, but I have succeeded in exposing Stonewall’s conduct & the enormous & to my mind malign influence it wields in the workplace & in society more generally.

As I said, these posts are going to look very silly indeed if Mermaids lose this case.

5/I have lost my case against Stonewall, but I have succeeded in exposing Stonewall’s conduct & the enormous & to my mind malign influence it wields in the workplace & in society more generally.

Yes. For some reason TRAs have doctored the screenshot to take out the rest of Allison's text. Takes all sorts.

I hadn't realised that when I posted the rest of the thread with that tweet missing. I just missed it out assuming that the screenshot showed the full tweet.

You know your arguments are weak when you have to resort to falsifying evidence to support them.

Yes, the second part is opinion (she even says 'to my mind'), but why post a doctored screenshot omitting it as though Allison never said it?

Yes, the second part is opinion (she even says 'to my mind'), but why post a doctored screenshot omitting it as though Allison never said it?

Exactly. This is the kind of dishonesty we are dealing with. Allison's statement was perfectly clear. She didn't actually lose the whole case, either. She won against her chambers for discrimination on the grounds of her gender critical belief. The connection with Stonewall was ultimately not able to be demonstrated but they hardly covered themselves in glory at any point.

What is genuine about those posts in any case?

You know your arguments are weak when you have to resort to falsifying evidence to support them.

100%

Tweet no.6 is particularly important regarding Stonewall. Organisations should not unthinkingly follow Stonewall 'advice', as it will ultimately be them who are held responsible for following it, not Stonewall.

Exactly this. Stonewall will wash their hands of you when the proverbial hits the fan.

Speaking from a purely personal pov, for me the value in the judgement in Allisons and Mayas cases was much less about throwing well deserved shade on SW, and much more about making it crystal clear to employers that people with gender critical views have an absolute right to express those views in the work place, as long as it is done respectfully.

This means SW and co no longer have a monopoly on the discourse on gender and sex in the workplace.
This will be a nail in their coffin, employers are on notice, taking advice only from them is not a balanced position. So, they face a choice, get more rounded advice, or get this stuff out of the workplace.

That reminds me, have SW published their accounts yet this year?

It’s also a very limited understanding of what exactly it is that feminists/GC people want to “win” exactly anyway.

It’s not about Crushing Adversaries. It’s about exposing poor advice that Stonewall gives and holding them to account of what the law of the land actually is, and not what they wish it to be. It’s about telling the truth. It’s about defending freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoints. It’s about fighting back against unjust silencing of the voices of women. It’s about exposing shoddy back room shenanigans and low tactics.

Winning means a lot of different things. And I never cease to be amazed by the one dimensional understanding, ill concealed projection and bad faith interpretation of motive by purported trans allies such as that demonstrated on this thread.

Yes, indeed, Soph.

People stuck in some tedious kind of game of one upmanship are maybe missing the very real consequences of people messing around with language and the law to try and accommodate a niche ideology.

I don't give a damn who 'wins' or 'loses' a Twitter spat. I care about fairness, safeguarding and clarity.

I care about fairness, safeguarding and clarity

Exactly.

"5/I have lost my case against Stonewall, but I have succeeded in exposing Stonewall’s conduct & the enormous & to my mind malign influence it wields in the workplace & in society more generally."

Just to point out that's just her viewpoint.

The belligerence and intimidation of men shines through, adding 'trans' to their name doesn't alter this chromosomal fact.