Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 3

1000 replies

nauticant · 14/09/2022 13:56

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

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.

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

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

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: 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 (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

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)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
LaughingPriest · 14/09/2022 16:50

In the first ROF thread someone kept calling tuesday by another name - was this being rude or doxxing or what?

IamTuesday · 14/09/2022 16:51

LaughingPriest · 14/09/2022 16:50

In the first ROF thread someone kept calling tuesday by another name - was this being rude or doxxing or what?

Tuesday has had many name changes on RoF!

None of the names they are using are my actual name.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn · 14/09/2022 16:52

"You understand some might view your opinion that sex is immutable deeply offensive. I also put it to you that having a problem with lesbians being told to consider partners with penises is inflammatory.""

Apparently a quote from MG, reposted on the ROF thread. I just wanted to repost to marvel at it - apologies if I missed it being posted here.

And I’m loving the edited highlights on the first post of the ROF thread!

TheBiologyStupid · 14/09/2022 16:58

nauticant · 14/09/2022 16:47

It's tuesday!

How marvellous to see you here. Keep up the good work elsewhere.

+1

TastefulRainbowUnicorn · 14/09/2022 17:00

Totally out of order (by GLP/SG) but looks like that maybe what the judge referred to?

I thought of that interpretation as it would seem to make a lot more sense - but there is a 0% chance that person would voluntarily say GLP/SG were out of order, their timeline is full on groupthink.

IcakethereforeIam · 14/09/2022 17:03

Thanks for the link to RoF, hello Tuesday.

Good to get another viewpoint.

The trans rights person, Vivian Wulf, who was posting on twitter. Live tweeting seems very full on, I'm not surprised they got a headache, hope they're feeling better soon.

Thanks for the new thread and the posts on MN.

Signalbox · 14/09/2022 17:06

Emotionalsupportviper · 14/09/2022 16:29

I really feel very, very sorry for Mr Monkey Gibbon, KC.

I presume he took this on the "cab rank" principle (and because they could pay his fees), and now he finds himself stuck with a - I won't say "unwinnable" because nothing is impossible if you have faith etc etc etc - but certainly a disheartening and humiliating case that he wishes he'd never seen land on his desk, and one which will drag his reputation as an able lawyer with great command of his brief through a prickly hedge and drop it into a cowpat.

If it was me I'd cry myself to sleep every night until this was over.

Doesn’t “cab rank” apply only to criminal cases. For something like this you would want to choose your counsel pretty carefully.

nauticant · 14/09/2022 17:06

In case people are baffled about the stir over the poster tuesday, it's because elsewhere she posts stuff like this:

Yesterday, Michael Gibbon grilled Bev Jackson over her use of the words "male bodied people" to refer to trans women.

Her response was:

"Yes it is unfortunate that we have to say "male bodied", some people would prefer to say "men". We are asked constantly why we had to form, why we exclude trans people, there are already lots of LGBT organisations. We have had to have a position from the start."

He then made heavy weather of their deliberate decision to exclude the T, forcing her to say:

"Well, yes, that is the point. Many organisations started off as LGB and we felt that was getting lost. It never occurred to us that we would have to deal with excluding the T because the T was not the point, we were for the LGB."

He then replied by saying:

"So the decision to exclude trans people was deliberate then."

Well, yes Michael, it was. Bev has just explained why.

You can't just quietly go along with it for a quiet life, because as soon as you do anything which does not put trans people front and centre, as soon as you use any kind of vocabulary they object to, you are vilified. You can't do anything in your own interests or quietly get on with your own stuff without trans activists in your face saying, "What about trans people? Why don't you care about trans people? Are you transphobic?"

And the quibbles over the use of the expression "male bodied people".... I mean, really.

We're not allowed to call trans women "men", even if we believe that men are male people and women are female people.

We're not allowed to call trans women "male people", because that doesn't correspond to their inner perception of themselves inside their own head (even though your sex is primarily in your reproductive system, not your brain).

So we are forced to use clunky phrases such as "male bodied people" to communicate the fact that there are some situations in which people who were born (and remain) biologically male and have male bodies do not belong in female spaces, regardless of how they feel inside or even how innocent their intentions are.

But they still object to that.

At the end of the day, they aren't objecting to the words we use, but to our right to express certain concepts. Such as the concept of humans coming in two biological sexes, and there being important differences between the two sexes which are not impacted by your personal identity. And the concept of same sex attraction, meaning being sexually attracted to people of the same biological sex as yourself, i.e. people with the same kind of genitalia you have, not people who believe they identify as the same thing you are.

This is why it is naive to assume that if you ignore the nonsense and just get on with your life quietly, it won't affect you.

Sooner or later you are going to find yourself given a verbal warning at work for using the wrong pronoun, or see your teenage daughter lose her spot on the sports team to a trans identifying male teenager, or be told by a rape crisis organisation that if you don't feel comfortable attending a women only therapy group where "male bodied people" are present, they won't help you (and neither will any other rape crisis organisation).

It's just getting worse and worse, and unfortunately it's not going to stop until a majority of people stand up and say, "No. I support trans people's rights to live in a way that makes the most sense to them, but not at the expense of everyone else's rights. This has gone too far."

OP posts:
Emotionalsupportviper · 14/09/2022 17:09

Appalonia · 14/09/2022 16:40

Oohh do you have a link to that, please?

@nauticant has given the link but I'll add it again here - it's on page 2 where the comments re: KH are, but all are worth a read

www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/mermaids-v-lgb-alliance-day-3?page=1

TheClogLady · 14/09/2022 17:09

Yay, Tuesday!

i saved this one to my phone yesterday:

Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 3
Emotionalsupportviper · 14/09/2022 17:12

Signalbox · 14/09/2022 17:06

Doesn’t “cab rank” apply only to criminal cases. For something like this you would want to choose your counsel pretty carefully.

Ah! You are very probably right.

I wonder if they were turned down by other counsel and Mr G finally said "Oh, FFS! Give it to me!'

IamTuesday · 14/09/2022 17:13

😉

I sometimes post here under another username, but am trying to avoid joining the dots between different sites for privacy reasons.

Just thought I'd pop in and say hello.

Will go back to my usual name now before I have a name change fuck up.

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:17

*tuesday! No way, I just came here to copy and paste your excellent post on RoF.

Is it rude to do it now?

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:17

*from RoF

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:18

The one about human rights.

IamTuesday · 14/09/2022 17:21

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:17

*tuesday! No way, I just came here to copy and paste your excellent post on RoF.

Is it rude to do it now?

Feel free!

Changing back now. 😅

Precipice · 14/09/2022 17:25

Doesn’t “cab rank” apply only to criminal cases. For something like this you would want to choose your counsel pretty carefully.

Cab rank rule applies to the barrister/advocate, not to the client. It is the barrister who, if approached within a field they have the expertise to handle, should not reject the case. It doesn't mean that the client is obliged to choose a random lawyer (although generally in the UK the client has the choice only of solicitors, who then instruct particular barristers). If anything, a criminal case is one where you'd most want to choose your counsel carefully, as otherwise you might go to jail! It's just that criminal defence is, unlike many fields, still one where you are entitled to legal representation even if you can't pay (and then it follows that you don't have choice of counsel).

Waitwhat23 · 14/09/2022 17:27

Tuesday, your exchange with Warren was absolutely brilliant!

TheBiologyStupid · 14/09/2022 17:28

Yes, just read the RoF thread - Tuesday's posts were brilliant.

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:29

Yay, thank you!

I was about to say ... this post from Tuesday at RoF is excellent and really relevant:

One of the things I find problematic with the oft repeated phrase "trans rights are human rights" is that it undermines the concept of human rights.

As far as I can tell, nobody sensible is saying that trans people should not have human rights. But the point of human rights is that everybody has them, and they have the same ones. Trans people have exactly the same rights everyone else has; no fewer, and no more.

Human rights that we all have, such as the qualified right to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, apply to all of us. You are free to believe in gender identity theory. We are free not to. You are free to manifest your beliefs in public. So are we. We all have the right to express our disagreement with belief systems we do not share. We do not have the right to harass or persecute people we disagree with. Trans activists do not appear to respect this.

We have the right not to be discriminated against, including for our sex. In order to protect this right, we must have the language to accurately define and discuss sex. We also have the right not to be discriminated against for our political opinions, yet people (mostly women) are regularly being discriminated against for their opinion that gender identity theory is a load of complete cock which harms society as a whole and women and children in particular.

There is no human right to require others to recognise you as what you are not.

There is no human right to access spaces or participate in sports for members of the opposite sex.

There is no human right for your penis to be in the women's communal showers.

So when they say "trans rights are human rights", they're not wrong, but they don't appear to actually understand what is a human right and what is not, or the fact that the people they disagree with have human rights too. The same ones they do. No fewer, and no more.

zanahoria · 14/09/2022 17:33

And there is a human right that states you cannot be forced to take an opinion against your will

GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder · 14/09/2022 17:37

Late place mark

Sophoclesthefox · 14/09/2022 17:39

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:29

Yay, thank you!

I was about to say ... this post from Tuesday at RoF is excellent and really relevant:

One of the things I find problematic with the oft repeated phrase "trans rights are human rights" is that it undermines the concept of human rights.

As far as I can tell, nobody sensible is saying that trans people should not have human rights. But the point of human rights is that everybody has them, and they have the same ones. Trans people have exactly the same rights everyone else has; no fewer, and no more.

Human rights that we all have, such as the qualified right to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, apply to all of us. You are free to believe in gender identity theory. We are free not to. You are free to manifest your beliefs in public. So are we. We all have the right to express our disagreement with belief systems we do not share. We do not have the right to harass or persecute people we disagree with. Trans activists do not appear to respect this.

We have the right not to be discriminated against, including for our sex. In order to protect this right, we must have the language to accurately define and discuss sex. We also have the right not to be discriminated against for our political opinions, yet people (mostly women) are regularly being discriminated against for their opinion that gender identity theory is a load of complete cock which harms society as a whole and women and children in particular.

There is no human right to require others to recognise you as what you are not.

There is no human right to access spaces or participate in sports for members of the opposite sex.

There is no human right for your penis to be in the women's communal showers.

So when they say "trans rights are human rights", they're not wrong, but they don't appear to actually understand what is a human right and what is not, or the fact that the people they disagree with have human rights too. The same ones they do. No fewer, and no more.

That’s a belter!

Fluffymule · 14/09/2022 17:45

It's why there's never an answer to the question 'what rights do transgender people not have in the UK'.

Transpeople, quite rightly, have the same rights as everyone else. So what 'rights' are being fought for in addition to those already secure in law?

What exactly are they being denied? Why are activists unable, or unwilling, to give any answer to these simple questions?

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 17:48

Exactly why I was so disappointed with Liberty. I had to leave, and they were an organisation I really rated previously - although having since found out about their association with/support for PIE, I've had to rethink entirely.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.