Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chameber) Thread 2

[nauticant]

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony started on 12 September.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets.

To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (?? September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (?? September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - Not yet available
Dr Belinda Bell: Not yet available
Beverley Jackson: Not yet available
Kate Harris: Not yet available
Eileen Gallagher: Not yet available

Submissions:

lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

I find the assertion that this supposed “new scientific understanding” is decades old particularly disconcerting. Such a massive shift would have been all over the media, and of course it hasn’t been, because it doesn’t exist. It really is 1984 in action, and Orwell’s prediction of people falling in line with the backdating of history, which always seemed unlikely to me, is being demonstrated in real time.

I keep thinking about this claim by mermaids that only 9% of T are straight when we know from Tavistock evidence that many young women who believe they are trans are lesbians (who by transitioning would become 'straight). Does the explanation perhaps lie in how desperately unfashionable it is to be 'straight' (or cis) so these girls are adopting one of the numerous and growing vague descriptors of sexuality put about by lgbt organisations and therefore are not classified as straight.

(Of course all the straight AGP men are claiming to be lesbians too.)

Does the explanation perhaps lie in how desperately unfashionable it is to be 'straight' (or cis) so these girls are adopting one of the numerous and growing vague descriptors of sexuality put about by lgbt organisations and therefore are not classified as straight.

Seems intuitively obvious, and various studies have suggested that, eg the first report in this thread:

twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1531264150231470080

The author provides a high-point estimate of an 11-point increase in LGBT identity between 2008 and 2021 among Americans under 30. Of that, around 4 points can be explained by an increase in same-sex behavior. The majority of the increase in LGBT identity can be traced to how those who only engage in heterosexual behavior describe themselves.

US comedian/talk show host Bill Marr started this recent segment on that:

Oh, and also, from that Tweet thread

The LGBT surge is socio-political, heavily siloed among very liberal young people. The GSS shows that the heterosexual share dropped about 20 points, to 66%, within the most liberal fifth of young people. It changed far less among others

So you'd expect to see an unusually big drop in self-declared "straight" people among "children deep enough into this stuff to be hanging out with Mermaids".

Similarly

College students majoring in the social sciences and humanities are about 10 points more LGBT than those in STEM. Meanwhile, 52% of students taking highly political majors such as race or gender studies identify as LGBT, compared to 25% among students overall.

Yes, for the last few years I feel as if I've been involved in a living history experiment. It's demonstrated how vitally important words it is to be vigilant about words and their meaning and look very closely at those who would expand or alter their meaning.

I would bet my boots a massive chunk of the children Mermaids sees ID as 'queer'. It's conveniently indefinable- while some people still resist the idea that a male can be a lesbian nobody will argue anyone can't be queer.

How many words or ideas associated with this movement are usefully and evocatively vague?

Queer
Gender incongruent
Dysphoric
Non binary

A movement that evades categories, description, and explanation. In fact explicitly casts what one might call a scientific attitude to describe, evaluate and measure as 'colonial' and oppressive.

It really does seem like the Enlightenment in reverse.

more vagueness:

Gender variant

and Mermaids’ latest favourite phrase ‘Gender Diverse’.

Hardly definitive reasons to justify blocking puberty and making children into life long medical patients.

I was looking for a young lesbian role model in the public eye, a celebrity or similar. Not a single famous person under 30 uses the word lesbian. They are all queer and/or gender fluid.

The obfustication is highly necessary.

I was amused yesterday by the attempt to get LGBA to admit they said 'male bodied' about TW as an admission of guilt - that they speak heresy!

When everyone with a grip was yelling at the tweets "That is the entire point".

To those who are not believers in gender ideology, a TW is a biological male, and will be perceived as such in all situations.

Which means problems with males in female spaces because it's a needed female only space, problems with female homosexuality where a biological male cannot ever be a potential partner regardless of how much they wish to because they're male, this is the crux of the whole issue.

Not all females participate in this belief, and therefore this is an irreconcilable position. And the answer, since compelled participation in other people's faiths is not a thing and you cannot either force those females to enact something they do not believe or exclude them as heretics in a sane world? Is third spaces. Parallel provisions. And the gender lobby do not get to stamp out heresy - otherwise known as the existence of accessible provisions for those who do not share their beliefs - because it offends them.

Next case please.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=5g1R41bbZNw

from 9 minutes in, Susie Green banging on about how puberty blockers are ‘life saving’ and how the (initial) Bell v Tavistock ruling is going to cause suicides.

She sounds very definite for a non-expert CEO of a non-medical-people org.

Sorry, my point was - I did have one! - that the blunt fact 'a TW is biologically male' is a fact. There's no getting around it. That is the bottom line of the issue.

It can only be avoided by twisting language in all directions and if necessary - as in court yesterday - resorting to trying to make it taboo to say. You cannot speak the truth.

Because if the truth is front and centre and we're all open about it, we have to admit and face up to the problem.

Musing... I have been waiting for someone to show Mermaids up. It's a particular irony that they've chosen this fate for themselves. Like a Greek tragedy.

But maybe Mermaids had little choice but to bring this case or something like it. LGBA are an existential threat to Mermaids in a way they're not to Stonewall.
Stonewall still has a solid history with LGBQ+ as well as T, they will still be a big influential organisation and they can still afford to share space and some funding with LGBA and other gender critical LGBTQ+ rights groups.

But now Dr Cass has declared that much of what Mermaids has to offer is a danger to children, and gender critical organisations threaten the little that Mermaids have left. Mermaids would have to do an almighty pivot (and change their name, which is too much of a give-away) just to survive. I'm not sure they could, so they're directly attacking GC groups because what choice do they have?

But much as I appreciate watching Mermaids show themselves up, I am starting to be really scared of the outcome of this case. The law is full of surprises and how humiliating would it be for a knowledgeable competent thoughtful group like LGBA to be defeated in court by - well, by the standard of people who have given evidence for the prosecution so far?

It would be like the Margaret Atwood line "defeated at a complex game of chess by the world tiddly-winks champion". Eh well, fingers crossed for a good outcome!

not read the thread in full - skimmed! - but the core point is surely that MM and the LGBTQ lot don’t want to admin there is a clash of woman's rights and trans rights. Conceding that LGBA have a legitimate right to represent LBG concerns means linking LGB and T is not inevitable and not in the interest of all LGB people

read the witness statement of the first witness - the consortium - and the overarching view of the consortium is that you either embrace the T or you are not part of the group. Ie complete rejection of single sex anything.

you either embrace the T or you are not part of the group. Ie complete rejection of single sex anything.

Precisely, they're not representing "L" and "G" and "B" and "T" people, all grouped together.

They're very specifically representing "the LGBT belief system", which is a quite different thing.

If the LGBA are found to not be worthy of charitable status and funding on grounds such as proven unacceptable behaviour or being political? Then absolutely I am fine with that. However on those grounds, down go Mermaids and Stonewall too. Fine again. No such lobby is a charity and gets charitable funding? Yep, we'll live with that.

If however is it found in court that they should be deprived of funding for believing in the fact of fixed biological reality according to the current law, and therefore essentially the court is agreeing there is such a thing as heresy and that forced participation in a belief not held? And that those who believe in sex and reality and the current law should be rightfully deprived of representation or a voice?

Oh bring on the appeal for that result. That should be even more fun than Maya's.

Perfectly put.

In essence: is it ok to discriminate against people on grounds of belief.

I think we have a law for that.

I think that there really should be a review of Mermaids after Bell's performance yesterday. I think that they have left themselves open to complaint now of misrepresenting their 'expertise' at the very least.

Managed to get a login in yesterday, what time does it start today? Is it 10?

Exactly. How was mermaids ever involved with GIDS given they have seemingly no expertise in anything medical and no interest in anything medical

Yes 10am

But much as I appreciate watching Mermaids show themselves up, I am starting to be really scared of the outcome of this case. The law is full of surprises and how humiliating would it be for a knowledgeable competent thoughtful group like LGBA to be defeated in court by - well, by the standard of people who have given evidence for the prosecution so far?

The law is full of surprises - the first Forstater judgement was evidence of that - but unless LGBA's two final witnesses cock up spectacularly, I can't see LGBA losing this. It would set such a precedent that other charities would be quaking in their boots. In fact, it would open the door to gender-critical activists trying to get Mermaids or Stonewall closed down for their political stance.

Where does the Atwood quote come from, by the way? I hadn't seen it before.

We have to thankful that the Cass review was commissioned. Without it, all this would be much more difficult

In fact, it would open the door to gender-critical activists trying to get Mermaids or Stonewall closed down for their political stance.

Right. And I don't want to have that power over them, because I don't want them to have that power over me. (See also parallel threads about taking down websites you don't like).

This is fairly basic stuff.