'No Debate' has had some disastrous downstream consequences for the trans movement. They made significant societal gains through stealth, emotional blackmail, using the LGB as cover, a long running positive campaign in the arts & media.
ST, for example, learned that throwing mantrums, being testerical, using hyperbole as argument, quoting Stonewall law - got everything ST's heart desired. Entitlement on steroids. Allies like JH working to manipulate any all processes. Until it stopped working.
So, scale that entitlement up to the wider movement and it's 'strategic thinking'. Rather than take a cold hard look at seismic defeats like Forstater, Higgs and FWS they have consistently downplayed and minimised the consequences. At least in what they tell the rank and file activists and tame press. I think they are, to a degree, living in the past with a tame press (actual activists) and many politicians in their pockets. It's hard to win if you refuse to actually name the problem. For example, they haven't realised that the bananrama defence doesn't really work unless you have some egregious behaviour. Will do a separate post on this.
The wider TRA movement and it's money folks may think this is a good case with a sympathetic claimant. But they've not been in a fair fight for quite some time, so they are struggling to make a realistic assessment of the case. Like the GLP challenge of the EHRC interim guidance, doomed from the word go even though the judge essentially re-wrote their pleadings for them in the initial court appearance.
In my professional life, we had a truism - you strengthened your arguments by seeking out someone with the opposite view. We called it 'sharpening the sword'. The TRA movement avoided exactly that situation.
I'm not a fan of the judge, but paraphrasing Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady 'I think he's got it'. The C has a weak case, further weakened by some procedural errors - the principal vs agent ruling was significant. If I (IANAL) was summing up C's case - you might criticise the Rs as reactive not proactive in their attempts to 'protect trans people' from the expression of gender critical thought. And may have been dilatory in their processes and responses to grievances. How much sand did the C throw into the process machine? Hard to say.
The SHOOM is turning into a legendary self inflicted wound for the C. (How did it fall into the C's hands???). Not in the bundle, late introduction, less than adequate vetting, HH did not have 'command' of it.
CA was a magnificent witness for Rs and NB was not bad either. The Rs are hiding no one - which is often the problem in gender critical cases. We have a saying in TT - there's often an angry enby or trans in there who calls up the witch hunt and leaves smoking guns all over the documentary record. That person is never called to give evidence. They are such a liability (think Mridul Wadhwa) and would totally befoul the nest and crap all over the case that even an activist barrister would shudder at the thought.
I have a question for the Hive Mind though. Why is this case not attracting press interest? Would appreciate thoughts on this.
I cannot see harassment or even indirect discrimination in this case, even with the Judge putting his thumb on the scales and the Panel member who seems to be a bit of TRA.
(I'm very worried about the conversion therapy bill BTW and will it bring back 'no debate' by stealth).