We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.

Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
The tweets posted under that account include “transphobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." It also accused The Lancet, amongst the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals, of "endorsing eugenics".
The second, alphabetically, is Professor Neil Evans.

Although he was described as an “internationally recognised neuroendocrinologist” he is in fact a Professor at the Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health & Comparative Medicine: gla.ac.uk/researchinstit…
Amongst his papers on veterinary medicine are a study on puberty blockers in sheep which was taken up by the Christian Institute which describes itself as "committed to the truths of historic, biblical Christianity" web.archive.org/web/2009020209….
The third, alphabetically, is Professor Gene Feder. He is plainly an eminent academic and practising GP (research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/gen…) but he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in this field.
The fourth is Professor Gillberg, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Gothenburg.

Professor Gillberg was involved in a major scandal in Sweden involving the shredding of evidence. informath.org/apprise/a6400/…
The fifth, is Professor Paul Hruz. Professor Hruz's evidence was explicitly relied on by the Divisional Court.

Paul Hruz is linked with the religious hate group, the Alliance for Defending Freedom splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017…
Professor Hruz is also linked with the US Heritage Foundation. heritage.org/gender/event/g…
According to this report, Professor Hruz's own university entirely disavows his notional expertise in the field (planettransgender.com/trans-communit…) but that did not stop the Divisional Court from placing considerable reliance on it.
There is a lot more to say about Professor Hruz but let me move on to the sixth in alphabetical order, Professor Stephen Levine (whose evidence was also relied on by the Divisional Court).
Stephen Levine has given evidence for the ADF.

As the ADF puts it here: "aggressive pro-abortion and LGBT activists aren’t just targeting churches and creative professionals. They’re also targeting our children—and they’re lying about it" (adflegal.org/blog/how-publi…).
The seventh was Professor Patrick Parkinson.

He is a Professor of the University of Queensland. So far as I can see, his evidence should not have been before the Divisional Court at all but nevertheless it was.
According to this report (mercatornet.com/the-truth-abou…) "Parkinson compared transgender people to the coronavirus, declaring it an 'epidemic.' Previously, he has... campaigned against LGBTQIA+ adoption and has ties to Freedom For Faith and The Australian Christian Lobby."
Parkinson has written in favour of conversion therapy canberratimes.com.au/story/6894776/…
He chairs or chaired the conservative think tank Freedom for Faith and was commission by the Australian Christian Lobby but stepped down from his role as head of the Law School. brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queen…
Freedom for Faith were recently angered by a decision to stop LGBT conversion practices in Australian churches theage.com.au/politics/victo…
The eight witness was Professor Sophie Scott. You can see her academic specialisation here ucl.ac.uk/pals/people/so…. Plainly she is an eminent academic but she does not claim any particular expertise on the question before the Divisional Court.
The final witness was Professor John Whitehall, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, Western Sydney University Medical School. Whitehall is another particularly interesting individual.
You can read about Whitehall here.

He has admitted that that, in 50 years in medicine, he has never treated a child for gender-related issues and has (or had) published no papers to do with gender dysphoria or trans healthcare. theguardian.com/society/2019/a…
Whitehall was listed as a speaker in support of gay conversion therapy for the Australian Christian Lobby. pedestrian.tv/news/acl-gay-c…
He was Vice-President of the US-based Christian Anti-Communism Crusade gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-ph…
He was former Deputy Present of the Christian Democratic Party whose is Fred Nile. Nile has said homosexuality is a “mental disorder” and is “immoral, unnatural and abnormal.”
Summing up on John Whitehall, he has multiple links to right-wing, anti-LGBT, anti-abortion and anti-trans groups.
These are the people whose evidence Ms Bell's lawyer placed before the Divisional Court, and at least some of which influenced it in the decision it made.

However, the Court shamefully refused to hear from any trans voices. It rejected (at least) three would be interventions.
Even if you do not care to listen to the views of the trans community you should be deeply alarmed that these or some of these highly marginal figures in world medicine are influencing the law around healthcare for children in the UK.
And if you do not care about the trans community - but you do care about abortion rights or gay rights - you should be deeply alarmed at the influence those who are no friends of 'progressives' are gaining in the UK.
If you'd like to support our efforts to protect perhaps the most vulnerable community in the country from the attentions of the US Religious Right (shamefully propped up by some who call themselves progressive) you can do so here. crowdjustice.com/case/transgend…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jo Maugham

Jo Maugham Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JolyonMaugham

15 Dec
"The end of the Transition Period provides an historic opportunity to overhaul our outdated public procurement regime," writes Lord Agnew in this long awaited Green Paper assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. If these words don't strike terror into your heart they should.
Remember, the Government's position is that no one has the ability to bring a public interest challenge to it giving contracts worth hundreds of millions to its mates. Only disaffected bidders, Government says, can bring those challenges.
We don't yet know whether Government's position is right. The position of the Administrative Court so far, is that it is arguable we do have standing. But we have no *financial* interest in pursuing procurement claims in the public interest.
Read 15 tweets
15 Dec
"I've moved a long way in my conceptualisation of what privilege really means, and quite how extraordinarily stupid and thoughtless and arrogant my tribe can be" vice.com/en/article/qjp…
I am really pleased I gave this interview to @RubyJLL. I haven't wanted to do media and have turned down a lot of bids - our media generally is in a terrible place - but there were two things I really wanted to say.
The first - and I feel this point keenly and have the proselytising zeal of the newly converted - is that people of privilege really, really, really need to get better at actually listening to those without it.
Read 6 tweets
13 Dec
If you look at the evidence - including from the UK - it tells you that allowing gender incongruent children and teenagers to 'affirm' in their chosen gender reduces suicide risks. Strip away all the sound and the fury and what last week's judgment means is more cases like this.
Of course, any fair judicial process would have heard from trans children/young adults about the benefits of puberty blockers. But the Divisional Court, in a manner I am still shocked by today, declined to hear from any voice representing their interests.
Puberty blockers are used throughout the world. They are used because transgender teenagers overwhelmingly 'affirm' and unless you arrest their puberty you cruelly force them to live a life where their body - eg an adam's apple, a deep voice - is incongruent with their gender.
Read 5 tweets
13 Dec
A short history of @GoodLawProject's involvement with Brexit.

In late June 2016 we launched the case that eventually established that Parliamentary authorisation was needed to trigger Article 50. ft.com/content/52e562…
In December 2017 we launched the case that a year later established that the United Kingdom could unilaterally revoke Article 50 if it wanted, defeating the UK Government, the EU Council and the EU Commission.

Here's me writing about that case. ft.com/content/3a0238…
In July 2019, we brought litigation that ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling Johnson's suspension of Parliament - perhaps the most shameful ever act of the modern British state - unlawful. theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
Read 5 tweets
12 Dec
Hard to avoid the conclusion that Johnson's £100bn Moonshot is a huge white elephant.
"They're putting in place an intervention that hasn't been evaluated, will possibly do more harm and will cost a lot of money."
"Media reports had claimed that as few as 4% of residents in poorer areas were coming forward, but the government said that it was too early to say for sure if that was the case."
Read 4 tweets
11 Dec
Here's a story for your Friday night. I've been wanting to get the documents to back it up but I don't think they're going to come so you'll just have to take from me that it comes from an impeccable source with no reason to lie.
I totally believe it's true - every word of it - and I'm putting it in the public domain because there might be just about enough for an actual, talented journalist to bottom it out. And bottoming it out is profoundly in the public interest.
So back in the very early days of the pandemic - February or March - a company (X) was given a very large PPE contract. X could reasonably claim to be a proper PPE supplier. The contract was signed and X started shipping the PPE to the UK.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!