If it ends up being broadcast on youtube, would there be associated costs with that? And if so, who is liable for them?
If transparency and accuracy are the issue here, then why was the number of people allowed to watch restricted - this meant there was less accountability on who could watch. And how is tribunal tweets any different from anyone else who could relay court proceedings. We've seen some very economic with the truth representations of previous court cases from trans quarters in the past and no one has taken issue with that from a legal point of view. Nor with the somewhat dubious newspaper andd news outlets who repeatedly still refer to these cases wrongly as 'anti-trans' rather than pro womens rights within the current existing scope of the law and conveniently always seem to gloss over harassment and threats.
Remember this is a public body which has public accountability responsibilities wanting to put this behind closed doors. Nothing quite says 'cover up' and 'scandal' quite like censorship.
Meaning if there is a ruling supporting the request, it will Streisand and add more fuel to the political fires on this.
Particularly if ultimately the case goes against Fife.
A man saying in court they are biologically female remains an issue regardless. This is a man under oath. This is a man practising as a doctor. This does not cease to be the case. Arguably I'd go as far as to say its in the realms of perjury and that isn't a great look. You can't BE trans and claim you are the opposite sex biologically - otherwise you aren't trans, because otherwise what are you transing from/to??!