This is the whole morning session from 24 June 2026 - so that people can recall the debate on this - and the really clear points Naomi made.
J - introduces himself and panel members.
On the basis that we know what the C & R position is, I will ask NC,
AL/HH - both reserve opportunity to comment on any remarks by NC
NC - in a sense it's not for me to speak to first, C has asked the ET for direction, C wants wrong sex pronouns or no pronouns from me,
J - HH has made that clear
NC - I'm simply making the point that this is C's application, asking the ET to do something unusual and extraordinary, seeking to control intervenor's speech to use wrong sex pronouns or efforts to avoid pronouns, it's not a trivial matter. Intervenor will not use wrong sex pronouns for the C, because Intervenor does not believe that C is a woman.
J - even if order by the tribunal
NC - no, the request is for us to choose between wrong sex pronouns and only use his name. Of course, you could go further and order us to use wrong sex pronouns. If we have to do that it will affect our every utterance, and significantly impact the amount of effort required. Witnesses are asked to tell the truth, and advocates need to be able to advocate for our clients. I says it's wholly unjust to be asked to jump through these linguistic hoops. It is a cognitive effort to use wrong sex pronouns, requires a mental effort to think of the individual as the opposite sex. You do that by trying to think of the C as a woman, cognitively it's a much lighter load to try and think of C as woman, then to remember that the usual rules of grammar don't apply
J - you find yourself in a difficult position, can we be brief on this
NC - you shouldn't interfere with the Intervenor and her advocates every utterance about the C, it's particularly important in this case because a witness and my main instructing party is autistic, its is particularly difficult for her to do something that requires untruth. The C says this is a matter of hearing management but it's a key part of the case itself. We have been taught and indeed the Tribunal has been taught that it is abusive to refer to trans people by correct sex pronouns. It is simply not. I also draw attention to the asymmetry here, we have not attempted to control the language of the C or advocate in any way and we would not think of interfering. We take a neutral position that all parties should use the language they see fit.
We say that its a part of HH advocacy to constantly use feminine pronouns and language about ST. If you repeat a lie often enough people come to believe it. For example TWAW
J - that's not what we're here to discuss, can we be brief
NC - that's all I have to say about HH advocacy. But the C has asked that a key witness, who is autistic, who has sworn to tell the truth. This application to control the language of my witness is flatly contradictory to the Equal Treatment Bench Book which says witnesses should not be compelled to use wrong pronouns and it says nothing about the language of advocates because they would be an extraordinary violation of rights. This application is an example of the type of behaviour that gives rise to the tribunal - a draconian attempt to control language and discussion.
It is a wholly unwarranted interference with Art 10 rights. This is a case in which it is plainly inappropriate for the Tribunal itself to use preferred pronouns. The C's case is that any manifestation of GC belief is harassment in the workplace. It is an important part of this story that he is male and the network that he is attempting to fit this scold's bridle to is primarily female. We say it is important that the C is male and that SEEN is largely female. The tribunal is a bullying act of a man seeking to silence women. You may feel inclined to use feminine pronouns out of kindness and courtesy. And those are good things in general. But by using those pronouns you are inherently accepting that it is unkind to not use them. I'm asking you to manifest impartiality between the parties and I'd like you to use name or C for C and avoid using gendered language.
HH - you have the letter from my instructing solicitors, sets out in detail our application. I am surprised by the intervenor's characterisation of application as extraordinary - follows to the the letter the ETBB (Equal Treatment Bench Book). It's about effective communication, it underlies this entire process, where the C is coming from, language is crucial because the deliberate use of he/him pronouns would have a profound effect on C's ability to give best evidence. Drawing Tribunals attention to C's previous experience on use of pronouns in earlier hearing. I didn't attend but C was x-examined at length using he/him pronouns and was traumatised by the experience. Because of that the judge in that case had intended to address C by preferred pronouns, the judge used he/him pronouns, accidental but had the effect of distressing C. This is a case that follows to the letter the guidance set out in the ETBB, could have tried to insist on everyone using she/her but acknowledges can't compel witnesses so is happy with no pronouns.
This is not a case of a rape victim being forced to use she/her pronouns, it is accepted that C has a GRC and is a TW. I'm grateful to the Rs for their approach to use preferred pronouns. We ask the Tribunal to do the same and witnesses to use neutral or no pronouns.
J - pausing for a minute.....J - we shall retire..
Break between 1st and 2nd morning session
J - with preliminary matters we will give decisions but not extensive reasons. Is that okay?
NC - may depend on the outcome
J - the tribunal will use preferred name and pronouns, C has pc of GRA. As to the Intervenor and witness we understand their position and accept that we
cannot compel witness to use specific pronouns, we ask the Intervenor as far as possible to use gender neutral language, we appreciate that this will be difficult, accidental slips may happen, but deliberate use of the wrong term or misgendering will be seen as inappropriate.
NC - can I be completely clear. My witness can use correct pronouns but I cannot?
J - we are asking you and the witness to use gender neutral language,
NC - so is that they/them
J - so they/them and C
NC - I may need to take instruction, can I have your
reasons.
J - will give full reasons at the end of the hearing.