Just reading the various witness statements. (I really wish MN enabled blockquote).
Paul Roberts keeps quoting quite reasonable things that LGB Alliance had said (based on, er, actual science and other such evidence-heavy nonsense) as part of his take on things. I suspect that his statement doesn't read the way he thinks it does!
John Nicolson blathers on a lot. But the LGB Alliance allowing him to be vilified during their fundraising was a misstep (as Kate Barker freely acknowledged in her testimony today).
Belinda Bell's is the most shocking, as it twists everything so much:
In para 32 she denies that homophobic parents would prefer trans rather than gay children. Channelling her inner homophobia, she says, without evidence, that:
Adults who are homophobic might be expected to have less tolerance for trans children, not more". She then goes on to state, "Transition would not be an effective strategy for homophobic parents who wanted to make their children straight. The Government’s National LGBT Survey in 2018 found that just 9.4% of trans people identify as straight; 73.1% said they were bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual or queer [BB1/72-74]. In other words, many trans people are attracted to people of the gender to which they have transitioned, many others have more complex sexual identities, but very few consider themselves straight. In any case it is not clear to me how it would be possible to “trans” someone out of being bisexual – following transition they would still likely be bisexual".
It is difficult to understand her point given the muddling of "same-sex" and " same-gender" that gender identity ideology promotes.
In para 34 she sidesteps Mermaids advocacy of "affirmation without exception" and the pressure it had exerted claiming that:
I have already stated that Mermaids is not directly involved in medical treatment of children with gender dysphoria, nor do we recommend medical treatment, though we do support children and families who are navigating the process. Our view, in short, is that the medical intervention of puberty blockers (the only form of intervention available to someone under 16) will be the best option for some children with gender dysphoria; for many they will not be.
In para 38 she uncritically cites:
A recent study published by the Tavistock, “Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK”, recorded that 43 of 44 young people prescribed puberty blockers went on to the next stage of treatment, cross-sex hormones, and benefited from that treatment [BB1/78-79]. This suggests that the screening and information sharing process before puberty blockers are prescribed is indeed sufficiently robust and capable of identifying young people who will benefit from medical intervention.
Yes, but: a) that supports the puberty blocker to cross-sex hormone data and b) is reliant on the lack of follow-up data for which the Tavistock/GIDS has been criticised for and why it is closing.
In para 39 she says:
Our view is that the current waiting times (up to two years) are too long, and that distressed children should be seen in a timely fashion, in line with the specified NHS target of 18 weeks – but it is absolutely right that once the process is underway, it is rigorous and involves comprehensive assessment and support, as one would expect in any area of healthcare.
LGB Alliance would agree, but BB's claims are at odds with the affirmation model that Mermaids has promoted thus far - is she saying that it has changed and was wrong?
Para* 41: In the 1980s, however, fears that children were being “indoctrinated” and “turned gay” by the “gay lobby” were widespread; they led to Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, the infamous provision which stated that local authorities were not allowed to “promote homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. Many LGB people who grew up under that regime still bear the scars of the culture of silence and denial it created.*
Indeed, that's why Stonewall was originally founded. The fact that some of its founding members now no longer feel able to support it is precisely why the LGB Alliance came into being!
Para 52. She says that the LGB Alliance "accuses Mermaids of homophobia (in fact, as explained, Mermaids proudly welcomes all LGB+ people")
But given the same-sex/ same-gender definitional split that is clearly understood. It is this division that poses an existential threat to Mermaids and Stonewall, hence this hearing.
In paras 62-65, BB claims that LGB Alliance uses its charitable status to deny being a hate group. Well, of course. And yet, even so, the Alliance had been blocked from major political parties at their annual conferences.
Still have the LGB A's witness statements to read....