Break now till 11:15. Here are my notes in simulation of talking to you all over coffee:
NC addressed Dr Wanggren as Ms Wanggren initially. I hope that was an accident - not cool. (Did notice Shereen getting a chair yesterday though!)
LW repeatedly saying you can find things online, well yes, but that's not how ETs work!
Personally I do not find LW credible, I wonder whether the tribunal does?
LW claiming that a word for gender ideology is "feminist theory", get away!
NC asking LW to confirm that she's listed the most alarming examples of what made trans people feel unsafe (i.e. stickers) - good call! LW bringing in events where gender critical beliefs were put forward. NC confirming that that's the worst, e.g., no trans person assaulted on campus to her knowledge, or gc feminists wearing black balaclavas had surrounded trans people and shouted in their faces... LW now mentioning that students were misgendered. NC going through a list of things, e.g. milkshake thrown at them, that didn't happen to LW's knowledge... ah now listing the things like trying to cancel meetings, which did happen the other way round, in order to confirm that they didn't happen. Good. Lots of "Yes, I would have mentioned that."
"Can you tell the tribunal about a murder of a trans person by a gender critical person anywhere in the world ever?" She can't, but waffles.
"Do you know how many trans people have been murdered in the UK in the last 10 years?" "Do you know how many women have been murdered in the UK in the last 10 years?"
She claims that people have been afraid to come onto campus and students crying because of being misgendered, but saying that she didn't have time to put these incidents in her statement, hmm.
NC digging into messages "Adult Human Female" and "Women don't have penises". Dogwhistle again! Is "women don't have penises" inherently transphobic, asks NC? LW says it's "trans exclusionary" and says that it makes (even) her uncomfortable to see such things.
It's fascinating to see the gender critical view described as "far right" even by a witness in a case brought by two self-avowed Marxists.
LW "I wouldn't even know what male sexed means"
NC seems to be pushing hard to get LW to agree that the view she disagrees with is legitimate - is she actually trying to demonstrate that LW will not agree that any disagreement is legitimate? LW seems to be havering a bit - she knows she's supposed to agree that people can disagree, but doesn't want to say that anything on the gc side is legitimate.
Moving on to dogwhistles...(I got busy and stopped paying attention)
LW insisting there's no debate, no conflict. NC giving Katie Montgomery's talk as an example where it is set up as a debate and UCU picks one side. LW struggling.