Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will continue this mornings coverage from this tweet. Abbreviations in the first tweet from this morning.

NC - Asking whether imaginary Pete was allowed in F CR - you said depends on sincerety - correct?
DU - yes
NC - no way a female user can judge.
DU - judging sincerety is difficult.
NC - all they have is that he is male an din the CR

DU - they might know her pronouns, no need to be unkind to Pete, shouldn't assume insincerity either.
NC - you also mentioned where he might be on his transition, but am I right you also said no amount of treatment is needed?
DU - yes, some people can't tolerate it

DU - some don't want it, it's not necessary for your GI.
NC - it's true that we don't need to get to numbers but large numbers of trans don't have any changes
JR - not for this witness
J - this is for other evidence.
NC - do you agree rules that keep men out of F spaces

NC - don't imply all men are a risk
DU - based on the suspicion they could be, if it's a safety issue. SO if you are assuming there's a higher degree of safety risk.
NC - there's a higher propensity ot violent and sexual crime in men, doesn't imply all men are violent

DU - you are talking about cis men?
NC - again, the rules don't imply all men are a danger.
J/DU interupt eachother
J - you are asking this witness about all of society?
NC - it is a matter of logic, asking DU to agree it's logical that rules don't imply all men are predators

J - do you mean WOrkplace regs 1992?
NC - no more generally, widespread phenomenon
J - but not universal, there is mixed changing
NC - asking witness to agree that sexed spaces don't imply all men are predators.
DU - I think I'm being asked, there is common split ofr CR, reason

DU - is safety, and not all men are predators
J - not quite. lets try slowly
NC - are sep by sex changing facilities common, and it doesn't follow that people believe all men are predators.
DU - agree most people think that, someone won't, but most
NC - some men are predators tho

DU - yes
NC but they are more likely to be.
DU - yes
NC - so keeping TW out of female spaces is the same, nobody is saying TW are predators
DU - I've seen people say all TW are predators.
NC - I'll try again. Keeping TW out doesn't mean people think all are predators.

NC - keeping TW out doesn't imply that TW are predators.
JR - what rule is being considered now?
NC - I'll try again. If you exclude TW from womens facilities, that exclusion doesn't imply all TW are predators. Logical structure.
DU - I believe it implies large proportion are

DU - predators. Your example compares men and TW, it implies the amount who are predators is on a parity with men which isn't true.
NC - the reason for exclusion, or wanting to exclude TW is not about predators it's that they are men. Keeping them out makes it single sex

DU - transwomen aren't men so the men's would be mixed if TW were in there. It's a tautology.
NC - your argument hangs on TWAW
DU - yes
NC - I've asked about your knowledge of women's discomfort around men. Now going to ask about SP's discomfort. Refs to picture. Weird incident

NC - SP walked into room, I said hey, she left, saw another walked in, there was a chat. I think she left because of me, sad, emoticon of sad
DU - disappointed face.
NC - we know from that 26th Aug you knew SP was uncomfortable
DU - inferred she didn't want me in CR

NC - didn't ask that, jus tyou became aware she was uncomfortable.
DU - noted she didn't want to change with me, may have been anger, upset, anything
NC - without specifics, 26th Aug she didn't want you there?
DU - that was the impression I got.
NC - another note

NC - 25 10 23 she did it again SP in CR, she left, found her outside, didn't even say hi. Weird. Similar thing.
DU - pattern of behaviour yes
NC - you must have known it was because you are a man and she was uncomfortable
DU - for clarity I'm not a man, it may have been my trans

DU - status. Gut reaction was hostility based on trans status. Presumed she didn't want to share space, that was her decision, assumed it was my trans status.
NC -- any reason she might be more comfortable with a man?
DU - trans man, cis man?
NC - a man
DU - I've never discussed

DU - her comfort around different GI's
NC - she was in a changing room with a man
DU - not a man, she must have assessed my trans status in some way.
NC - even if she wasn't aware of your trans status she would find your presence difficult and humiliating
DU - never expressed

DU - I can guess, I thought it sad that she might have transphobic views, I can only report my experience
nC - despite knowing she was uncomfortable you carried on
DU - yes
NC - you carried on doing something which SP found humiliating.
DU - can't speak of her emotions

DU - I was told I could. I can't speak of her feelings, I have to get changed and so I did. I'm sure we wil talk about Dr Searle I told her what was going on and just like everyone else I continued using the facilities
NC - you describe yourself as TW, so born male, male body

DU - so you are a man and you wish to be seen as a woman
JR - there are lots of questions there, one at a time.
NC - you are a TW, not a Cis woman
DU - yes
NC - don't have a female body
DU - that has no definition, I'm female and I have a body so biologically female

NC - what distinguishes you from a cis woman?
DU - me or all TW?
NC - either
DU - TW woman assigned male at birth and wishes to live as a woman.
NC - how does assignation happen?
DU - look at body make a best guess if they can, not always clear, I'm not an obstetrician

NC - never suggested you have a DSD?
DU - I;ve provided a comprehensive answer
NC - so no DSD, for most it takes no expertise.
DU - no legal status
NC - it's an observation a 5 year old can make
DU - 5 year olds are quite different, not a marker of intelligence just age

NC - I'm saying both you and SP, no matter what your GI, you are a man
DU - disagree
NC - insisting colleagues accept you in CR without signs of discomfort you are demanding they go along with things you and they know aren't true

DU - disagree I'm demanding, I can't make people comfortable. Spoke to DS and didn't escalate because I can't.
NC - insisting SP share a room without signs of discomfort. That insistence is bullying and abusive
DU - I've not insisted and it's not a falsehood and it's not B+H

JR - is this going to be B+H through the policy? Can that be put please?
J - could be harassment under policy/law/different ways, not my role to determine what qu asked
JR - if under policy she should ask.
J - can make in submission
NC - in 1984 novel have you read

DU - no
NC - the torturer insists 4 fingers are 5, the ultimate torture is making Winston say something they both knew to be untrue. It's comparable isn't it.
JR - is my opponent comparing my client to a torturer?
That is worse than the C comparing to a rapist.
J - we'll break

J - return at 2.

@threadreaderapp roll up please.