English Blackball Pool Federation

[Signalbox]

The hearing is scheduled for 7th-11th April at Canterbury County Court.

Tribunal Tweets will be following the case…

Live tweeting sessions Abbreviations
J - His Honour Judge Parker
HH - Harriet Haynes, claimant
RW - Robin White, claimant’s barrister
CC - Colman Coyle, claimant's solicitor
EBPF - English Blackball Pool Federation
PT - Paul Thomson, defendant
AG - Anna Goodwin, defendant
SC - Sarah Crowther KC, defendants’ barristers, and
SS - Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson
JRL - JR Levins LLP, defendants’ solicitor
JG - James Goodwin, witness for defendant

The original thread has been deleted for “breaking Mumsnet guidelines”. Not sure why but possibly “misgendering” or possibly making it too easy to find the crowdfund @mumsnet it would be good if you could let us know so this thread can stay up. Do we have to pretend that the Claimant is female?

NB there is some gardening to be done. Please google to find it the relevant page. I daren’t say more than that.

Thanks for the thread Signal!

@Signalbox
Thank you for starting a new thread. It would be good to know what issue/reporting led to the deletion, especially as the whole thread was deleted and not eg individual posts.

Re how to contact MNHQ though, this below from Site Stuff - apparently @MNHQ doesn't go through, so @mumsnet might not, either:

HebeMumsnet · 10/07/2024 09:52
Morning **. Yes, as others have said, we check in here regularly if you want to chat here, or you can email us at [email protected]. Or you can hit the report button above any post (preferably a relevant one but it doesn't really matter too much) and send us a note that way.

Well, with Robin White as barrister . . .

Didn't Robin White very inappropriately join a thread on here about one of Robin White's cases?

Just checking I have the right fundraiser - is it on the GoGetFunding website rather than Crowdfunder? About helping to defend our female blackball competitions from litigation?

Yes. With zero insight that this might be an inappropriate act if I recall accurately.

Yes the gogetfunding page looks to be the correct one.

One side has RMW while the other has a KC.

I wonder how this will play out ...

I’ve asked Mumsnet to comment.

Hi there OP,

We can see the previous post was deleted due to misgendering.

There are numerous threads / posts on this forum where men who call themselves women are referred to using the pronouns "he" without deletion. Please can you advise why was this thread in particular deleted when those other threads have been allowed to stand?

So it looks as if we will need to avoid using sex-based pronouns in this thread if we want it to remain up. It's always two steps forward one step back.

Coral, I thought Mumsnet allowed us to call males men now? Including transwomen? Genuine question. It used to cause deletions, but I thought Mumsnet had stopped that now?

I can see that some people believe that "misgendering" is bad, even harmful.

What's not clear is why that belief is taken more seriously than those of us who think "missexing" is bad, even harmful.

A man calling himself a woman, or indeed anyone calling a man a woman, is mindbogglingly offensive to women. Even before the material impacts.

The whole reason for this case is people going along with calling men women.

Maybe you might want to be cautious about an ongoing case - in which case you need to be symmetric and take the same view on calling an individual a man or a woman.

To allow calling someone a woman, but not allow calling them a man is taking a side on the case.

The courts themselves seem to have figured that out in recent guidance - that they need to not stop those in the case on either side from using their own terms.

What @NecessaryScene said.

it's so sad that an organisation of that size & limited means is having to lawyer up in order to defend the way that it draws the lines between its sporting categories, which are really no different from age groups, boxing weight classes, belt colours in martial arts, etc etc etc.

the TRA's would of course agree to a degree that such struggles are disproportionate and unnecessary, but only on the proviso that they get their own way, unconditionally.

so here we are.

Woman are now (!) being allowed to refer to men who identify as women as 'men' and 'males' in actual court and tribunal proceedings. Their speech is not being compelled.

Why can we not do that in this sex and gender section, already hived away on the Mnet site, on the only major social media network that is overwhelmingly populated by women, and on a specific section that is concerned with this topic? No one is @ing the people concerned. They need to come looking for us.

Thanks Necessary. Remarkable that it needs to be said.

GC views are WORIADS so a protected characteristic. It is harassment & direct discrimination against those holding GC views for MNHQ to delete posts that call out cocks in frocks as men. As per the tribunals GC people cannot be forced to use incorrect pronouns when referring to men dressed as women.

The courts have specifically said you cannot be forced to use wrong sex pronouns. Did they say 'except on Mumsnet'? This compelling of women's speech by the people who specifically monitor this site is direct harressment against GC beliefs. Shame on you for going along with it.

It's kind of tricky to discuss this case without "misgendering" as the compelled use of wrong sex pronouns hides the whole reason that the case has come to court in the first place.

Which is exactly what has been argued in the courts and accepted by judges. It's impossible to be accurate about the legal proceedings when we are being made to uphold falsehoods.

@CoralMumsnet
How can we quote what is said in court without misgendering?

Deleting the whole thread for "misgendering" is not at all consistent with other threads on the forums. It makes you wonder if they've been threatened by individuals involved in the case. We know that these boards are monitored by at least one individual involved. I suppose we will, once again, have to resort to convoluted language to ensure the thread stays up but this is a really disappointing step backwards from Mumsnet.

Say it loud and proud NecessaryScene, Mmmnotsure, PrettyDamnCosmic and Apollo441.

Mumsnet you seriously need to re-think your stance on this.

Shameless lurker who doesn't contribute often but shocked to see that Mumsnet is going against current guidance being used in courts and forcing ppl to compel speech to the point of wrongly sexing someone.

More info on how Mumsnet have come to this decision to promote gender over sex would be useful @CoralMumsnet