TB plans to spend 3-4 hours with Dr O'Neill. Did she gulp? Planning to go to 12:45, then start again in the afternoon. Oh grumph software issues.
TB seems to be arguing that the film is not within O'N's academic competence, and suggesting that she therefore can't expect the utmost protection for the views expressed in it under academic freedom. She's not doing a good job of defending against that, but it's a matter of law and I'm not sure her opinion is all that relevant.
TB asked her about things in the film that she herself doesn't agree with, and she mentioned where someone had said that most women were kind and compassionate, and also something about pop culture being an inch away from porn.
TB asked her about the title, why was it chosen? Not clear what this was about.
A sequence of questions in which TB gets O'N to confirm that certain contributors are not academics - presumably so that he can use that, too, to say that academic freedom does not apply.
Judith Green, a midwife in the film described sex assigned at birth as absolute nonsense, and TB tries to get her to agree that this is anecdote!
(I am multitasking so may be omitting a lot)
Asking her about Simon Edge's assertion that it's crazy to say that a child is born without a sex. O'N pointing at the fact that we can't discuss these matters openly, rather than at the content.
(I don't think TB is enjoying this - I would bet quite a bit that he, too, agrees with practically everything in the film.)
Shona Dillon - she is an academic. Describes gender identity theory as "an absolute mess".
Joan Smith describes a movement (unidentified) which is asking to take rights away from other women. O'N says that in context it is clear that the movement referred to is the trans movement, "men who identify as women". TB goes to a later point where she refers to "trans ideology".
Dr Jane Clare-Jones (O'N refers to her as an academic, but actually she doesn't hold an academic position AFAIK although she has a PhD)
Now a sequence that seems to be about things in the film that gender ideologists might object to:
some discussion of Judith Green chuckling at gender-neutral pronouns and how that doesn't show respect for trans people maybe
Aja referring to transwomen maybe as "bruv", and asking O'N to accept that this is directed at transwomen - yes, because Aja things transwomen are men. TB: Is that an example that other people would put forward of misgendering transwomen? O'N: Yes, that is an accusation that would happen.
Reference to tw being "from the world above" - double meaning, men above in the patriarchy and gender ideology being a very middle class movement. Something being exclusionary towards transwomen - O'N emphasising that it is men being excluded from single-sex spaces for women.
TB digging into what the film says about transwomen in prison - he suggests that it's unclear it's tw in prison who are referred to, O'N argues that it is clear. TB asks whether the MoJ's figures are "disputed" and O'N seems somewhat incredulous; he goes on to ask about whether the film discusses how tw come to be in prison - no, because that's not what the film is about. This bit feels a bit tenuous; TB has to attack the statistics but the attack doesn't come off as very credible to me. Maybe his point is that this film is not a fully contextualised, academic-paper-like academic document?
Judge asking about whether it's the respondent's case that the statistics are not correct? TB explains that he plans to show the counter-perspectives that formed the basis for the concerns that were expressed at Edinburgh. Appreciates that this is not a trial of the film.
TB digging into a section where there's a "they" described as "predatory" and "very dangerous" which O'N says it's clear refers to male sex offenders who identify as women and are placed in the female estate, and TB wants to suggest refers more broadly to transwomen as a whole. O'N being very clear what "they" refers to and arguing that there is, in context, no ambiguity in the film. TB arguing that it's ambiguous.
Umbrella animation - they commissioned it for the film. What was the brief? O'N can't remember specifically but it was about how the trans umbrella idea has broadened. Words include "opportunistic" "predator[y?]" "two spirit".
JCJ refers to the number of people who have a cross-dressing fetish for erotic reasons. TB asks: does the film identify who is saying that this should be placed under the label of transgenderism? O'N rather oddly not understanding the question (it's Stonewall, isn't it, I don't know whether the film says so, but either way, couldn't O'N say so?). O'N: no, we don't explore or analyse it. TB: do you accept that some transwomen might say they don't want to be put under that same label? O'N: Absolutely! TB: Many? O'N: I don't know. TB: does that contribution from JCJ appear to associate transwomen with men who have a cross-dressing fetish for erotic reasons? O'N: she's saying it's a strand of transgenderism. [I don't get this thread - it's not controversial that e.g. Stonewall does put these together, is it? TB seems to be suggesting that saying that is offensive. O'N is also confused.]
Some more stuff in which it seems the point is that O'N argues that things said in the film apply to some transwomen, TB tries to argue that they apply to all transwomen. TB still seems to want to hive off the men with a cross-dressing fetish from the definition of "transwomen"! It sounds as though he really thinks there's a distinction, wonder whether he really does? O'N not pushing back as hard as I would in her place, but perhaps it's wise.
We resume at 2pm.