Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to DAY 8 of the #ForstaterTribunal, in the case of Maya Forstater vs CGD(Europe), CGD & Masood Ahmed. This is @wommando tweeting and we expect the Court to begin at 10AM.

Catch up here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1503730…

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater - Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any one of the 3 members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1

CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2

MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3

Today Ben Cooper QC will continue examining Amanda Glassman 's evidence (AG) .

AG is the Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe).

cgdev.org/expert/amanda-…

AG is normally based in Washington DC but are in the UK for the purposes of giving evidence.

The court is “virtual” with all participants and observers accessing 'remotely’, including us at Tribunal Tweets.

We begin. The clerk reminds the court the basic ground rules of connection issues and please mute yourselves. You must not record the hearing.

EJ reminds the court that there is a reporting restriction order in place and it's criminal offence to publish names and email addresses of four individuals who are referred to as complainants 1-4.

EJ: a couple of things, one there's been email exchanges between parties and tribunal about evidence in unrelated matters. We haven't had a chance to take that on board and further correspondence likely to go on. Can I suggest we continue with AG evidence until anything else

BC: yes butni need to address you now to address someone of the markers and how you manage the hearing in regards to them
EJ: allright
BC: you should have an email enclosing a statement and 2 new docs and making application for permission for that to be introduced to evidence

BC: 1st headline is we will oppose that, no objection going into the bundle. 2nd headline you should deal with the application at the end of the evidence as one factor is it will impact on evidence and time. I do need do lay down these markers. 1. I will invite Respondent to

BC: think very carefully about those markers and how they'll be managed. EJ: I'm concerned were getting I to a pre match running into the application
BC: this is an extraordinary application to be submitted but I do need to put markers down

EJ: I'm kt enthusiastic about markers
BC: I would normally not do and of your position but...this is going to have such a significant impact on the case , and I won't take time

BC: first marker in the application email the explanation for late app is 'has become clear the complaint of victimisation of Web profile is focussed on alumni pages.'. That is a false accusation.

BC: 3rd disclosure on 2 new doc this morning show a proper hold notice wasn't placed on docs in accordance with parties and solicitors. We've not previously troubled you with long battles of disclosure but we will need to if App is pursued.

BC: The principle point that arrives from docs shows contrary what we had been told... the long battles of disclosure, the respondents said they would search mailboxes personally for relevant docs. The new email has not previously been disclosed.

BC: It shows that we have not had proper disclosure. This is a reply to an email we don't have disclosed. I cannot expected and not willing to cross examine the witness without proper enclosure of material I am entitled to...

BC: 3rd marker is, the picture as to reasons given for removal of website remains murky and clear and gownit comes clearer with questions I ask. It may be necessary to recall claimant as to what she saw on website.

There are practical consequences.
4th observation...any view the app will take substantial amount of time...and secondly to hear evidence

(Missed)
OD: in my submission it'd be more appropriate to deal with it after AG. It won't take as much time as BC seems to think

OD: I don't have full instructions but I think there's been an understanding...of course it's entirely regrettable for late submission...I'd suggest it can be dealt with and not take time up

OD: you will have to discuss it with your colleague, BC seems to think it will take tome
EJ: what is beyond doubt is to complete AG evidence and then we'll take a view on when App will be addressed.

EJ: the other thing discussed is that in terms of the hearing next week...we thought about time tabling in the following way.

(EJ is putting forward suggestions for timetabling next week)

EJ: let's continue
BC: we had been looking at initial response from you to complaints that LE received.
BC: you tell us more members of fundraising team in Washington and London spoke directly of their concerns to you
AG: yes

BC: complainants 1-4m
AG: no 1-3
BC: and plenty discussion
AG: yes
BC: wider discussion in Washington fair to say?
AG: no

BC: did you make any notes?
AG: no
BC: what they said you now tell us they were hurt and offended by mF comments on twitter
AG: yes
BC: did you take thr trouble to check the claims were correct

AG: I saw it was about pip Bunce...they were talking with LE
BC: was it apparant to you Pio bynce didn't identify as a woman
AG: I didn't look carefully at pip bunces profile

BC: you thought it'sd be difficult to say she crossed any lines
AG: yes
BC: the exchanges here, LE proposes a first draft he was proposing a fairly interventionist approach and restrictions of tweets

AG: your response you said you were concerned and it'd get you into policing people. So you recognise you senior researchers who heavily use SM in a way that is robust and humorous, yes
AG: yes

BC: they use it to criticise
AG: they shouldn't engage in ad hominom attacks against individuals

BC: complaint from Martin Kirk and he gives an example of what he describes as 'aggressive in tactics and tone from MF' and calls it 'fake news' yes?
AG: yes
BC: defence (reads email) that was the tone that was common (lists) isn't it?

AG: I think the tweet ref reflects what you described
BC: but in general this was the tone...
I'll ask again. Was it a common tone?
AG: yes
BC: and you recognise that in this email here
AG: yes

AG: if you took a different line with MF you'd be giving less favourable treatment
AG: yes
BC: we can see other ppl contribute to the email discussion reinforcing your point with telling examples,

BC: (reads emails) we can see MF participated and OB objected publically too. Both emails refer to the fact CGD policy was challenged at certain points
AG: yes but we (missed)
BC: where do we see that
AG: it was always provided as guidance

BC: but these emails suggest that that qualification wasn't made
AG: we asked ppl to put in their bios it was their views not the org

BC: have a look again, iM says 'is it our policy to let employees know they are against CGDs position?' So he didn't know that?
AG: I don't think he means the twitter blog statement

BC: he doesn't 'generally' know that's the position
AG: I agree it's not clear from his email

BC: this is an earlier email from LE about how to respond to claimant. He says maybe we ask everyone to add their own disclaimer' which again suggests it's not generally known
AG: we expect most people to do and most ppl do do. But you could interpret the way your describing

BC: it's not interpreting though, that is it isn't it
AG: not as my understanding
BC: you can't point to anything that says that
AG: no not in this bundle now

BC: now LE originally sent email

(Missed with checking confidentiality matters)
BC: you say it was intention to cause offence with TW
AG: yes
BC: but she states

AG: again she says TW are men and I'll continue to say them
BC: you didn't disbelief her?
AG: she's saying one thing at the beginning then different at the end

(Missed)
BC: at the end of the paragraph she is telling you how she would interact with trans ppl

AG: but the exchange is around a trans person pip bunce and calling him rude things
BC: she's telling you she will respect people pronouns
AG: yes
BC: you didn't think she was a liar did you?

AG: I don't think of it that way
BC: So she has sustained her right to express her right that TW means men and women is AHF
AG: that's how she understands it yes

BC: the real crux no that there must be a way of having respectful debate and not misgendering and crossing the line how do you think the claimant could have expressed the belief TW are men and BS is a biological reality that can't be changed by identity without being offensive?

BC: sorry to interupt but I'm see can we just get to the crux. How could she have said her core beliefs in a way that you would not regard it as offensive as unacceptable?

AG: she could have used cis woman and teanswoman
BC: So she has to concede to those terms..you understand many women regard the term cis woman as offensive?
AG: I don't understand that
BC: the bench book makes it clear

OD is accusing BC of improper
BC: do you understand the reason they find that offensive because they don't believe they identify as a woman
AG: I don't understand this part of the discussion

Bc: would you agree that some women see the Gender Identity category as one way women have been opposed over centuries
AG: I don't have any knowledge so...

BC: you tell us in your statement you reviewed the claimants tweets in detail. Second tweet (reads). She's making exactly the point you said you didn't appreciate or understand.
BC: Gender identity to women is a tool of oppression?

BC: what your saying to the claimant is not only can you not talk bout your fundamental belief but must take on a other
AG: I disagree
BC: you've struggled with this because there is no way MF could have discussed without you finding it offensive

BC: your telling what the core belief is. The employment tribunal quotes sex is biological and immutable. Can MF say that without being offensive.
AG: my opinion isn't relevant
BC: you don't get to decide what's relevant

BC: could she say that inoffensively?
EJ has intervened to say its relevant
EJ: could the claimant in your view say sex is immutable
AG: that's her belief
EJ: the question is can she say it and express it in a way that isn't offensive to you
AG: er...e..ur

AG: she is absolutist and she can say it
BC: with a colleague
AG: it's not the right discussion to discuss at work
BC: we agreed that in london office it was common accepted practice to discuss personal beliefs
AG at that time it was

BC: if that is the culture then MF making statement is that something she could say unoffensively?
AG: she works in an org who has two parts and there are ppl who will interpret it differently
BC: another of her belief there are only two sexes, can she say that unoffensively?

AG: given London culture at rhe time yes
BC: that sex is a material reality and no overridden by gender identity. Can she say that on application platform
AG: she did it and it was offensive to a number of ppl

BC: In a democracy we don't have to restrict statements noone else is offended by, certainly on SM
AG: no
BC: So whether what the claimant did was acceptable can't be judged by ppl taking offence
AG: it's about a work place, is it her right, of course

BC: it's not a workplace because you were reacting to tweets
AG: yes
BC: So this isn't about judging the workplace but her on Twitter
AG: repeat the question

BC: the principle issue is what the claimant said on twitter. When I put that to you, you said it was about the workplace? But that can't be right can it?

AG: perhaps that the relevant metric but the context if this cinvo is the response to MF tweets. It's states statement that generated feelings and responses and complaints. And she responded saying they're not controversial or offensive

BC: stating that sex is a material reality on a social media platform is acceptable associated with CGd even if it causes offence
AG: it will and has happened
BC: can claimant say men are males and women are females?
AG: yes

BC: all of these questrions are whether you regard these statements as acceptable and uoffensive
EJ: I'm losing the thread slightly. Are you asking I'd AG or org finds it offensive?

BC: do you find people to be male or female to be offensive?
AG: I find it inaccurate
BC: do you agree with rules and culture it's not unacceptable for MF to say on twitter
(Missed)

(Missed)

AG: it was her right, there's no specific guidance on SM
BC: going back to LE, once objection is the claimant was unproperly presenting beliefs as facts you understand her belief is a matter of fact not gender identity which is internal feeling?
AG: yes

BC: and we get that everytime ...you're real objection us her stating her belief on any terms.
AG: I disagree...she likens TG to mental illness
BC: let's deal with that.

BC: (reads MF's position on sex)

EJ has interrupted saying its concerning someone with a Skype name may be streaming the hearing. They've now gone and is concerned

BC: I've just read MFs core beliefs and in the context of this email the claimant is responding to an assertion that she has published offensive and exclusionary statements on twitter.
AG: I think we should refer to the exact language, some people

BC: the clear intention and effect of LE email is to say that language is not acceptable because some or another of ppl find offensive
AG" msg says what it says and asking to be sensitive to ppl and their realities
BC: it's talking about twitter statements

BC: are you saying it wasn't the purpose of LE to say to claimant what you're saying has been regarded as offensive and don't say it on twitter?AG: it wasn't say don't say it, but put disclaimer on twitter

BC: it's not surprising claimant feels she should respond
AG: yes
BC: one way would be to renounce all statements
AG: yes
BC: but if it was that she said she had important beliefs she is entitled to those. She is not trying to convert you is she
AG: no

BC: this is an important topic and she should be allowed to express...and shouldn't be stopped from expressing
AG: I don't see that.
BC (highlights part in email...including claimant saying she finds womanhood being stereotyped as offensive)

BC it is ot clear she has strong views and I should be allowed to say them
AG: that's what she is proposing
BC: she's not trying to convert you
AG: and she says they should be heard via CGD

BC: we've agreed that was the ulture in London offices at the time
AG: yes
BC: it's not an issue that irrelevant to international development?
AG: it's not relevant to our think-tank
BC: In any event she makes it clear while she'd like cGD to host event she's not pushing

BC: do you agree she's not strongly pushing it
AG: in this piece no
BC: having described her core beliefs the point she is making is that internal feelings are not their real feelings.

I'm aware you object to the analogy but the point emphasis is the dictionary between material reality and other forms, ie biological sex bit I'm ot saying someone gender identity are not real. Do you understand the distinction

AG: I see that's what she has written. Most ppl on twitter don't distinguish don't distinguish between reality.

(EJ interjects about concept of material realityand witness should answer questions)

BC: my question was did you understand before we xome to the analogy that the point the claimant was making was between the material reality of sex and the internal feelings of someone gender ID which she accepts ad a different reality?you agree?

BC asks again
AG: no
BC: you read this and you didn't understand that was the point she was making

BC: (referring to anorexic analogy) when ppl are making points they use analogies, what matters is to understand the point they're illustrating
AG: yes
BC: a fair reading is not claimant saying trans ppl are mentally ill

BC: what I suggest again what's happening, you are always very very ready to inform some form of offence or bigotry from what the cimant is saying
AG: I don't agree

BC: in fact you never take the time to understand carefully what she is saying. ...in fact your starting point is everything is offensive and bigoted.
AG: no

EJ interrupts and we will break until 11.40

We are back.
BC: let's move on in chronology. You received an email saying there needed to be a robust discussion of claimant fellowship?
AG: yes
BC: you received MP reply saying he certainly wanted to renew
AG: yes

BC: you then received email and miss mckensize said to you can respond to mark?
AG: yes
BC: the implication is mckensie is opposed to continuing affiliation
AG: yes
BC: and you knew as you'd discussed it with her and others
AG: she sent me an email

BC: that you discussed with her and others
AG: I got an email...we got no explicit...I infer from emails she wouldn't support it

AG:... in general terms it's possible to have different relationships with ppl who contribute to a grant.
BC: the funders except the ppl to do the work and if you're going to change that you need their permission
AG: were not required to inform them

BC: there's an exchange here with MP reporting back where he had got clearance it was OK to reallocate the work the claimant had been doing
AG: its not a formal legal requirement biut good practice to consult yes

BC: you say 'phew good news'

(Missed)

BC: if you don't tell the funder this?
AG: it could be problematic

BC: first point yourself to understand what miss mckensie was driving at was not just grant was irrelevant but she'd also like claimant off grant. That fair?
AG; I don't have that interpretation it it's certainly possible

BC: substitute work arrangements doesn't mean change totle. You're the person who write this so I'm asking you to explain

EJ interupts:
EJ: what did you mean when you said substitute
AG: you could bring in a new person or change organisation of work

BC: So I'm right it does mean take her out of project entirely
AG: I'm saying MP can do that
BC: you said she could also consult to produce a selective piece

AG: I can see that interpretation.
BC: can you see she wanted the claimant off the roster
AG: I'm asking you did it because miss mckensie wanted claimant off the project
BC: I'm going good suggest you understood that be ause of convos outside emails we see
AG: not that I recall

BC: In the knowledge of shed been talking to ppl in London office bit you didn't seem to know who she's talked to or what she'd said?
AG: at this time yes
BC: you weren't saying you can't have her carry on because she's obstructive
AG: no

BC: and noone else did
AG: no
BC: LE intersects in opposition to renewal of fellowship and misquoted the claimants about part time cross dressers, yes?
AG: yes it's a broad statement

AG: you comment on that, and say LE flagged rhe claimant referred to comeone as gender fluid as a part time cross dresser on SM? That's not true
AG: your right I inferred

BC: it's different to referring to part time cross dresser to TW
AG: that's would be one I terpretation
BC: you understood accuracy and truthfulness and you could correct correct things jn the statement. Why didn't you correct this?

AG: I..I.. I would apologise, I thoughts that what he meant
BC: you've now seen how Phillip bunce describes himself
AG: yes
BC: and its an accurate description?
AG: I don't agree. it's offensive to him...or her

BC: you criticise advancing messaging because it's one sided and could be discriminatory did you regard the blog post as offensive and derogatory
AG: parts not the whole thing

BC: let's look at blog post. Do you agree the central msg of blog post is there's an important debate to be had in which the view that sex is material reality and different from gender ID...that's the central argument isn't it?
AG: it one key element yes

BC: you never replied to rhe claimant to say that you found it offensive did you
AG: no because I felt my own views weren't relevant...and the yes of evidence in blogpost

BC: you could have commented on relevance
AG: I did in the phone call
BC: and someone else did and she changed it yes?
AG: yes
BC: the claimant wasn't ejected because of the quality of citations was she?

AG: ...it was a factor
BC: claimant is identifying that cis women may be harmed if trans women are admitted to women's spaces?
AG: yes
BC: Then identifying different views on this, yes
AG: yes

BC: one harm that may arise is to because women need to feel comfortable and have appropriate privacy and comfort you agree?
AG: absolutely
BC: she explicitly says any man who identifies as a woman does so with ill intent

BC: if people identify as women but are men then that would infringe. That's not an offensive point to make. She explicitly says there are predatory men who will exploit a new imposed norm of men
AG: it's the whole argument is problematic but your not asking me that (laughs)

BC: the whole argument claimant makes poses risks for women and you regard that an illegitimate and offensive discriminatory argument? Do you believe that the idea men nay exploit this is offensive?
AG: yes that there are specific harms that men are assaultory

AG: the sex education that's utterly without any evidence
BC: I suggest your just wrong or willfully misreafing
BC: It says there are MEN that will exploit

BC: do you think that's offensive and discriminatory
AG: that's not the way I read it
BC: it's not is it
AG: there are elements that are problematic
BC: if that what the claimant was saying about men it's discriminatory is it

AG: I'm not qualified to discuss the legal aspects
BC: I'm not asking that. It's not offensive
AG: yes but its hypothetical...anyhow...yes...

BC: next point you referred to in summary is tha5 women and girls won't be able to assume ppl in positions of authority will be able to go to a person they percieve as male you need to leave that's not hypothetical, thats the heart of the question

AG: this is a statement. It not based...on.. and er... and
BC: it wasn't offensive or discriminatory?
AG: I just don't know what you'd have to assume this for self ID
BC: this blog is calling for a debate yes
AG: actions yes

(Missed connection issue)

AG: talking about the blog arguing that CGD should talk about this issue and it doesn't make any sense
BC: I'm ot asking you about CGD I'm asking is your statement the blog is offensive and discriminatory

BC: I'm not asking about hosting the blog, about your statement the blog is offensive. Is alarmist the key word in your answer
AG: it's an element
BC: the blog is arguing there's policy issues
AG: yes

BC: did you know ow there was a public consultation
AG: yes
BC: and asked women's group from responses yes
AG: yes
BC: did you know ow the EA in UK allows for single sex spaces excluding transppl.
AG: yes

BC: if you knew the act allows for single spaces and has them you must have understood that in establishing there's reasons
AG: yes
BC: grounded in risks to women
AG: there's some discussion..yes

BC: direct risk of men assaulting the other compromising safety dignity and security. You understood all of that how is it alarmist to say there are these risks and they may be compromised if we create new culture where we can't object?

BC: most TW are intact males did you know that?
AG: I the abstract yes
BC: if women can't say this is a male please leave this may I pallet which already exist and are acknowledged for having single sex spaces?
AG: that's her argument
BC: Karen White is a relevant case.

BC: what's alarmist is that
AG : you don't have to bring up a TG person to discuss it
BC: do you understand the important thing to safeguard children is to name things truthfully and xonfidentally talk of their experiences
AG is laughing

BC: children are taught to name things truthfully aren't they
AG: yes
BC: do you understand claimant and others say if you can't do this it undermines safeguarding
AG: I don't know how self id prevents thar

BC: if a new norm is some women have penises its harder for them to describe
AG: I don't think saying TW says they have penisis. I have a great deal of discomfort discussing this. (Exhales loudly)

BC: these points have direct bearing and relevance which were live policy issues in UK at the time. Now I've taken you through why the blog is offensive do you now agree its no
AG: no I do not

BC: it's the same point as the leaflet in the office did you look at the leaflet?
AG: yes
BC: the first time wad here
AG: oh your talking about the leaflet
BC: did you look at it
AG: not until flagged by quantum

BC: when
AG: I.. I.. I'm confusing...I saw the leaflet but I did the video by fair play for women and saw leaflet later
BC: by after when the claimant had left
AG: yes

BC: General point in a democracy campaigning documents use the tools of advertising yes
AG: yes
BC: they're allowed to yes
AG: yes
BC: nothing in the video went beyond normal tools of political campaigning

AG: I found it pretty difficult to read. It has red evil hand of TW getting women.
BC: you see that a red evil hand of a TW?
AG: it's a self id person with GRA coming to take women's rights. That how I see it. It seems quite sinister

BC: it's using striking imagery in a campaigning tone
AG: that's correct it's very similar to blog post
BC: it's clear points being emphasised are privacy safety dignity fairness in the rights women have for safe spaces?

AG: yes
BC: the hands off my rights is a perfectly normal graphic image opposing the removal of rights. Its not an evil TW hand that's your prejudice isn't it
AG: no that your description of my views
It says TW are going to do that

BC: that's this issue. Will self id impact on women?
AG: I don't know
BC: you don't respond to any of those points with claimant
AG: no
BC: noone ever said to her before QI report that was anything in a video she'd tweeted which was offensive
AG: no

BC: she accepted your decision not to host blog
AG: yes...there was other moments she asked for space to debate

BC: when you told her you wouldn't publish blog you said 'is this the Hill you want to die on'
AG: I don't remember using that term
BC: So it meant if she kept going she would die on that hill as far as respondents were concerned
AG: this set of topics is NOT a good fit with CGd

BC: there's a long transcript of interview with someone called page and hasn't as a child felt trans and grown as teans and then experienced periodic switches and came to be happy as a woman?
AG: yes
BC: you didn't send this as a neutral act

BC: claimant has always said there's been different views
AG: yes...I thought she...anyhow...I had hoped she would nuance her messaging about her beliefs
BC: you were stopping her current vleiefs
AG: no I would be be in no such role to do so

BC: am I right when the claimant engages with you and your colleagues that prostletising when you do you're just giving another perspective?
AG: we had a respectful conversation and was sharing what I thought was relevant

AG: you sent an article from new york post explicitly trying to persuade the claimants position on biological se as wrong
AG: no I sent it with no comment
BC: that's ot right. (Reads email)
AG: NYT automatically write that...its an opinion piece yes

BC: you sent it because you want the claimant to get the message about biological reality
AG: I wouldn't put it like that. i shared links of other views.
BC: there's a double standard.

AG: I don't agree I was prothletisimg but I understand your point
BC: you jump to December there were discussions happening about claimants future
AG: there may have been I wasn't in the office then

BC: miss mckensie sends you a msg and discusses organising 'wr want to try the amplification technique'. This means everyone repeats the same thing and so ppl can't ignore.
BC: we can see mckensie was organising opposition to the claimant

BC: secondly she seems to think you're on board with the opposition
AG: she implies and is wrong
BC: it's a northern bit of evidence that is contrary to what you tell us

BC: is it really your case you didn't speak to miss mckensie at all...you're going to say its inappropriate to talk about...
AG: yes
BC: you didn't tell her to stop or say not to be inappropriate
AG: no

AG: you didn't say that mckensie was organising opposition and would be suitable to be on the panel...this email is t significant
BC: she talks about the video
AG: yes
BC: which was influential with you
AG: yes
BC: and became influential with others
AG: yes

BC: that email is referred to as one of the claimants tweets
AG: I don't recall
BC: the Panel included this person because they assumed she was neutral?
AG: we'd have to look at exact reference

BC: I'm certainly right that you don't chip in about the person on the panel since she was organising opposition to claimant
AG: no I was trying not to participate in this whole process. (Exhales loudly)

BC: was it standard practice not to take meetings
AG: no
BC: you didn't record
AG: no
BC: you expressed them at the meeting itself?
AG: no
BC: So you're describing things affected you but not part of general view and decision making, fair
AG: yes

BC: realistically this is a retrospective reconstruction view isn't it?
AG: my role was to listen not talk
BC: you made no record of these thoughts, you didn't voice them but you wrote your statement 3 years later you could recall with this level of specificity

AG: yes we were emerged in this for a long time
BC: that's not correct
AG: it's reality
BC: (reads point 1) claimant wasn't commenting on it from an employer perspective
AG: I took it as the implication

AG: what is the point for us which was feedback on tweets, I see blog talks of
BC interrupts to ask to answer questions. ..
BC: you are explaining the things you thought were objectionable about claimant tweets
AG: yes
BC: she's ot tweeting about single sex spaces and employer

Bc did you infer the aimant wasn't making a general point but talking about toilets at CGD.
AG: both points
BC: she was NOT saying this would be enforced by demonstrating their sex for a toilet at work
AG: on panels she said employers should count females as women

BC: in the end if you're going to have single sex spaces and awards for women not TW you have to ask people don't you
AG: yes it's inherent in making that argument
BC: you knew law in UK
AG: yes

BC: bit you say it's totally unacceptable and violating of a person identity to ask them if they're male or female to get access to a space or service
AG: that's not what I'm saying. I recognise single sex spaces
BC: how did she cross the line

AG: it's not an appropriate argument to make

BC: I'd hoped to finish before but this seems an appropriate time to finish for lunch.

EJ: we resume at 2pm

This is a typo: The section of writing that was being read out is - "NOT THE SAME as saying any particular man who identifies as a woman is doing so with ill-intent"