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?

I am also shocked that an entire thread was deleted for “misgendering” when the sex of the individuals under discussion is entirely pertinent to the case!

The fact it was deleted makes me suspect that MNHQ was threatened with litigation for allowing the thread to stand - could @CoralMumsnet confirm this? Again, it’s impossible to know how we can discuss a court case where the sex of the individual is the basis of the case, without noting that sex.

Are all of the Sandie Peggie threads going to be deleted too? And the fencing ones? It would be useful to know what prompted this shift

This is on Lynne Pinches X today. Two people whose sex we are not allowed to mention on this thread are in the women’s quarter final of the ultimate pool women’s pro series event in Wigan.

@CoralMumsnet

Please could you confirm whether Mumsnet HQ are going to allow us to repeat, accurately, what is said openly in court, and will likely be repeated all over in the mainstream press and social media.

If you are policing our speech, please let us know on what grounds, and on whose demands - individual or organisation.

Thank you.

It's very telling isn't it? Men claiming to be women are taking women's sponsorship, places, medals and awards when they're allowed to take over women's sport. Not to mention their sometimes successful attempts to decriminalise voyeurism and indecent exposure by wedging themselves in to women's changing rooms, showers etc as seen in the Darlington and Fife cases.

The time for pretending is over. A democratic society depends on truth and free speech - not threats and fantasy luxury beliefs.

My assumption too.

Protests today

https://x.com/JeanHatchet/status/1908874920945213926?t=Tv4o07CezLzCSIWwun9duA&s=19

More...

https://x.com/JeanHatchet/status/1908868396378181910?t=lVDlLEXbwwq8AIDZXrwItQ&s=19

Signalbox · Today 11:37

Please can you advise why was this thread in particular deleted when those other threads have been allowed to stand?

I'm pretty sure that a certain person uses their professional credentials to intimidate MN into deleting posts which mock them, or correctly sex them. I've had posts mentioning they deleted.

I wonder if it's about the misgendering of ermmm particular barristers?

Yes, that was my thought too.

Appalling but not surprising. I’ve donated and (despite the disappointment of going back to 2019 speech on this thread after a heady blast of freedom elsewhere) I’m encouraged by RMW as defending barrister because they seem to be a pretty crap lawyer with little grasp of the law, at least if their book is anything to go by. Hope this is allowed by MNHQ.

But yes, it’s a nasty move by the TAs, this is a small volunteer run sport. They are standing up heroically. Any spare carrots please send to their GoGetFunding.

Re sex-based advantages in Pool:

Jean Hatchet on X: "There is a real chance of two [-] playing in the final of the women’s Ultimate Pool tournament at 8-45 tonight. Lucy Smith = [-] Harriet Haynes = [-] As @PinchesLynne told me today - the [-] are taller, longer reach, fingers bigger for a bridge when balls are close together, https://t.co/WuxVrm0BqR" / X

Edited out of an abundance of caution, but this is all over the internet.

No idea where the score-through came from - sorry.

Two people of unmentionable sex (not female) will be competing against each other in the female finals of the ultimate pool women’s pro series event.

https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1908947408333234558

Confirmed that Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith will meet each other in tonight’s Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series Championship Final.

https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1908947408333234558

Hi all. We’re reviewing what happened here. The thread was reported a fair bit and so we’ll need a bit of time to go through everything and piece together what was moderated and why. We’ll come back to you as soon as we can with a bit more clarity. As our guidelines say, we allow people to discuss biology and scientific evidence, though context is everything, especially with regards to this discussion. Thanks in advance for your patience!

So two men who want to be called women competing against each other. Doesn't that partly defeat the object? It's normally to show that you are better than a biological woman.

Barring the fact that neither would have got as far in a male competition.

I guess for mediocre players of the unmentionable sex the women’s category offers an opportunity that wouldn’t be available if they played in their own sex category.

yeah, I mean, say what your like about men but I don't think even the most hardened of misandrists would begrudge them an admission that they're good at cue sports.

Naomi Cunningham review of the book:

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

@BeckyAMumsnet

AFAIR it was a relatively new thread. And a short one.

Does it not strike you as odd that it was 'reported a fair bit'?

Thank you. The moderation on Mumsnet is usually excellent. I am grateful enough for this well-moderated space, which generally allows a reasonable degree of free speech, that I have recently started subscribing. On the other hand, I am concerned that sometimes 'misgendering' is considered to be far worse than 'missexing' by some moderators.

I am not young. Until a few years ago, my understanding was that when people used a third person pronoun they used one that referred to the sex of the person they were talking about. Suddenly in recent years I find that this is considered by some to be abusive. To be honest, I find that highly offensive. It means that there are people who are trying to compel us to use language to obscure objective reality in favour of one ideology's redefinitions. This forces us to go along in our communications with an ideology we do not support, an ideology which we find problematic. An ideology which tries to compel me to call my son my daughter, for example.

It is to be hoped that MN moderators can tell the difference between abusive language and simple refusal to accept compelled and illogical speech.

For context, we use words in the traditional, widely understood way. We don't refer to gender, we talk about people's sex. Some people decided they wanted their own definition of words and came up with the ridiculous concept of misgendering.

If a tiny but aggressive part of the population decide to use a different definition of certain words, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for not going along with it. Imagine that some people have decided that the word cat now means dog. If a group of people who prefer the new definition started harassing those posting in the litter tray board for not using the new, progressive, language, would you delete posters for misspeciesing? A poster that added a picture of their great dane and asked for advice for stopping their cat from barking at cisdogs would rightly get pushback from the others on that board.

We are not responsible for the hurt feelings of people who decide they want to use words in the opposite way to the vast majority of the world. Their upset does not trump ours at being forced to lie that men are women. Being forced to go along with the misogynistic language on this of all boards is so antifeminist that it's goes from being FWR Sex and Gender to MRA

What a good explanation. Thank you
It's long overdue that everyone challenges how offensive it is to misdescribe men as women. How offensive it is to deny the reality of women's lives & bodies to the extent of removing the words woman, mother, girls from healthcare, maternity care & policies and countless other parts of society while allowing men to colonise so many of these aspects of women's lives.