Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning this is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually tweeting the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am.
This is Friday 29th April 2022

@GoodyActually The Court has lost two days (Wednesday and Thursday) because of the claimant's ill health, and we don't yet know how that will affect the hearing overall and today's session.

@GoodyActually You can read our notes about the case, and a list of the abbreviations we use when live-tweeting, at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/4723de58-092…

The session is beginning. The clerk is checking that all barristers etc are present. Clerk introduces the case: reminds attendees to mute, to avoid background noise; that the chat function is for court use; that proceedings must not be recorded. (We have permission to live-tweet)

EJ: introduces self and panel.
EJ: introduces BC, IO, AH
EJ: asks for an email address where the public can request the public access document bundle

BC: Doyle Clayton (Peter Daly) will be posting a link to a read-able bundle for today's witness statements, but that is still a work in progress because a download from GC chambers is being very slow

BC: that is where we are in practice

BC: I note that a practicing lawyer has contacted Peter Daly to say that she has not been able to log-in to here

EJ: Notes that Helen Steel attending says in chat she has the wrong code - if she could clarify where from?
[in chat] was email from tribunal
EJ: Perhaps we should just share passcode, it's not secret

EJ: Many people attending. Although this is remote we expect conduct to be as it would in court room; you must not interrupt proceedings. Chat room is JUST for the technicalities of the hearing - and even then better to email the Clerk. It's NOT for comment

EJ: at least once this week someone logged in using a pseudonym that was a taunt, even possibly a threat, to the Claimant.

EJ: You do not have to log in using your real name but such a pseudonym is unacceptable

EJ: This is quite a complicated case.

EJ: Claimant is a barrister covered by Equality Act on workplace discrimination (tho barristers technically self employed)

EJ: She claims direct discrimination (v GC) because of beliefs on sex and gender: and indirect discrimination because of her sex and sexual orientation

EJ: She claims vs SW that they incited this.

EJ: There is dispute about 4 acts AB claims are protected (agreement re 1)

EJ: She claims detriment re lost work, and re a complaint that found against her; and detriment re Subject Access requests she made re data protection acts.

EJ: There is also dispute about whether some claims are being made late.

EJ: That is a quick summary of a a (very long) list of issues here

EJ: today we will hear from 2 witness on claimant's side.

EJ: I need to rule on admitting a document requested by claimant.

EJ: we already have about 6,400 pages of documents,

EJ: doc is minutes of a meeting with SW by some Irish therapists. Who are not proposed to be called. Claim is that moves to show SW pattern of behaviour.

EJ: We decide not to admit it; evidence is potentially relevant to inference re SW relationship to diversity champions but we think existing bundle docs from 2019 are adequate for that argument.

EJ: So we are not adding this document.

AH: letter from tribunal yesterday - one ongoing thing re redactions - email from instructing solicitor yesterday - you have asked us to clarify, there is one name AD Alex Drummond that will not be redacted.

Names J, C and T should remain redacted - no connection to SW at all. And FC and JB, new names, also not related to SW, please keep all 5 redacted.

EJ: The redacted bundle not quite ready - does that include the redactions that were proposed yesterday? How many being redacted? 3, 5, 6?

[some convo]
EJ: I will need to consult with panel and decide later.

EJ: This is all happening very piecemeal
AH: Apologies - as EJ has said it's a very large bundle

AH: Shall only be referring to one document today
EJ: in absence of bundle you will need to read out to public

BC: Reiterates that public access to docs is important
EJ: yes
BC: If AH tells us which document we could post just that one.
AH: Good idea
EJ: We don't have the witness statement bundle either?

BC: I believe each will be posted as each witness takes the stand
AH: Not sure that is the right way to proceed, I shall seek ruling

EJ: Please give today's documents AH so that Doyle Clayton can post
AH: [gives page numbers]

AH: re witness statements - disagree that when other witnesses are *mentioned* their statements should also be public. That should only happen when they take the stand.

[background noise - EJ mutes somebody]

[Missed a bit as my connection dropped]

EJ: Introduces witness

Nicola Williams = NW

NW: Affirms truth, whole truth, nothing but truth

BC: Dr Williams you have your witness statement?
NW: yes
BC: you have read recently
NW: yes
BC: true statement
NW: yes

AH: Good morning Dr Williams
AH: You say that you are research scientist, specialising biology.
NW: yes
AH PHd Uni Leicester 1990s
NW: yes

AH: then 11 years Astra Zeneca
AH: So you know importance of reliable independent data
NW: yes
AH: and representative samples
NW: yes

We are having technical problems.

Nicola Williams is sworn in.
AH: Turn to paragraph 4...tells us you a research scientist specialising in biology. I looked you up and see you have a PHD from leceister in 1990s
NW: yes

AH: without reliable data and representative samples results worthless?
NW: can be indicative in context
AH: without reliable data and representative samples results without value and non probative?

(A lot misse due to tech)

AH: we are agreed it's unreliable
NW: no I don't agree
AH: evidence can't be anecdotal
NW: some can

NW: disagree "without value" - observations can be valid
NW: disagree "unreliable"

AH: cannot base on anecdote
NW: disagree - research often is based on that

NW: it's backed up by most of the supporters for FPFW are women
AH: you're aware of scientific rigours and it entails asking a question and doing background research, hypothesis, testing with experiments, carrying out..

AH: as a research scientist you are aware of the rigour of scientific method
NW: yes
AH: involves asking question, conducting research, develop hypothesis, test by experiment, collect results, analyse, check vs hypothesis, communicate result
NW: yes

AH: proper procedure, analysing data and concluding, making sure results align
NW: [says correct to all]

AH: Peer review = makes data available
NW: usually yes

AH: People do *not* decide result then hunt for data?
NW: No, and I don't think I've done that here

EJ: Notes in chat that people cannot access the witness statement - can Mr Daly please try to sort out

AH: let's look...turn to paragraph 1
EJ: we are having a problem in the chat with witness statements...back to AH
AH: at para 1 we see it supports claimants assertions. First is women are more likely to be supporters of GC

AH: In para1 of your statement - says you are providing evidence to support claimant. Two statements:

One that women are more likely than men to support gender critical feminism; Second that lesbians are.

NW: Yes
AH: You stand by those?
NW: yes

AH:......second and separate us that lesbians are more likely to support GC. You say both assertions are correct
NW: yes
AH: para 10 there's a further statement [reads]

AH: Further on you say therefore I have no hesitation in saying that our supporters are far more likely to be women than men than is the case in the population as a whole
NW: yes

AH: I cannot see in witness statement any evidence that lesbians are more likely -

EJ: sorry to interrupt - we can only hear AH intermittently - is this background noise or connection?

NW: yes
AH: I couldn't see in the entirety of your statements that lesbuans are likely to be supporters if GC feminism. Isn't any is there? You have to answer verbally for the record.
EJ: we are only hearing intermittent words and difficult to follow

AH: [checks if can be heard]
AH: I could see nothing in statement supporting proposition that lesbians more likely to be supporters of gender critical feminism

AH: the Q I puy to you is could see nothing that supports 1B that lesbians are more likely to be supporters of GC Feminsim
NW: evidence is my own personal experience.

NW: statement is my personal experience 5 years at fair play for women and as a lesbian myself. I am used in other settings to be in a minority; in FPFW and around this I find many more lesbians. 1 in 10 , 1 in 5 compared to maybe 1 in 100 in general life

NW: As a lesbian myself I'm used to being a small minority within a group and so I have no hesitation in saying in GC there are more lesbians than other areas in my life

AH: u have benefit of your statement and you realise the purpose of it
NW: yes
AH: and you are an intelligent researcher. In para 2 there are two sentences...nowhere in this statement is any ref to what you have just said.

AH: there is no actual evidence of it, in your statement.
NW: Not directly no
AH: Not indirectly either
NW: My statement is about my experience in this area

AH: There is not one single reference to lesbians being more likely in your statement.
NW: Agree

NW: not directly
AH: none full stop is there
NW: I've explained what I've done over the last five years
AH: I repeat my question, not a single ref...do you accept
NW: yes I don't refer to it

AH: You say you are director of Fair Play For Women. Full time employee also?
NW: yes

[more sound problems]

AH: Turn to second proposition, you derive evidence that you are a director of FPFW. Are you FT employee?
NW: yes
AH: paragraph 3, FPFW describes itself in broad terms
NW: problem with sound I can't hear

EJ: trying to mute - please will observers mute!

EJ: please mute yourselves
AH: I was looking at page 137 [reads] " campaigning and consultancy org..."

AH: that's a very broad policy statement
NW: yes
AH: it encompasses more on its face than GC issues
NW: erm yes
AH: you yourself describe at para 3 as a GC org
NW: yes

AH: You say FPFW is a campaigning and consultancy org working to help policy makers support rights of women - very broad?
NW: yes
AH: goes beyond gender critical issues
NW yes

AH: so supporters aren't just GC
NW: no its clear, the comms we make are focussed on sex being considered and accurately represented.

NW: FPFW are well known as a gender critical organisation, campaigning for sex to be accurately represented and to be supported

AH: You refer to action against ONS re census and Scottish government ditto?
NW: yes
AH: you also gave evidence in a JR re MoJ
NW: yes

AH: para 5 of the statement. You also filed proceedings against Scotland which didn't have same level of success
NW: yes
AH: and for a female prisoner
AH: Is it fair to say your stance is not impartial

AH: You are not impartial
NW: we are a campaigning organisation
AH: You are a spokesman
NW: yes
AH: you are not an independent witness
AH: You have a vested interest in outcome of this

NW: not independent but have personal experience of my work
AH: you have a vested interest in the outcome of this case
NW: I support Allison Bailey's claim yes.

NW: "vested"?
AH: You want AB to succeed
NW: yes

AH: you are not independent.
NW: I was asked to give evidence and am doing so

AH: You are not a membership organisation
NW: no
AH: No database of supporters
NW: no
AH: or members
NW No

NW: I've been asked to give a witness statement and assist the court
AH: page 179...
AH: you are not a membership org, no database, and no database members?
NW: correct
AH: no independent figures available for analysis?
NW: our crowdfunder info is public

AH: No figures available for analysis
NW: our crowdfunder is
AH: not members
NW: no, supporters, that is the evidence we put in

AH: you looked at who had given money, to draw the conclusions
NW:yes

AH: but that has no supporters
NW: we can see the majority of names are female.
AH: the beginning and end of it is you look at ppl who have donated to crowdfunders for these numbers
NW: yes

AH: you've used a tiny method to draw a conclusion as a whole
NW: er yes
AH: and you a research scientist puts it forward as reliable?
NW: its goes alongside other evidence and my personal experience

AH: and you've then used that tiny sample to draw conclusions about population as a whole
NW: yes
AH: and you put that forward as a reliable proposition? As a scientist?
NW: It is evidence.

AH: there's been 4 campaigns you've run. We see in the graph at page 182, these are the data you relied upon correct?
NW: correct

AH: You say that crowdfunding is - four campaigns?
NW: yes
AH: Graph here - your data you're relying on?
NW: yes

AH: Compares your fundraising to others which are not related to gender critical feminism
NW: yes
AH: Numbers in red are anonymous ones?
NW: yes

AH: 57% anonymous for 2 of them, 52% for other 2
NW: yes
AH: compared fundraisers show less anonymity?
NW: yes

(Missed)

AH: you have more anonymous donors than others?
NW: yes
AH: there's nothing to show women respond to crowdfunders more than men?
NW: no

AH: So it's showing you have more anonymous donors?
NW: yes

AH: no evidence to show whether women more likely to respond to crowdfunding than men?
NW: no

AH: that is a Q a research scientist should ask?
NW: This is a FPFW article from 2021, re anonymity. But we found when looking that non-anonymous were mostly women. So we looked at that. We found other fundraising could be as low as 15% women. So I was confident of results

NW: we also looked at who was not anonymous and most names were female. We looked at other crowdfunders for exactly ehat you've asked. It's not the case and there's a range of differences

AH: article doesn't address this
NW: No because article wasn't about that
NW: Rest of witness statement addresses is about women percentage

AH: there's not the slightest mention if you addressing that?
NW: (missed)
AH: ill ask again...do you agree
NW: I've not referred to that.. and I say 90% of not anonymous were women.

AH: The fact that you did look at pattern of if women donate more is not in the article and not in your statement?
NW: No, it's a witness statement not a science article
AH: You should have included
NW: possibly but I am telling you now

NW: This is my interpretation of the data
AH: but you have not supplied that data
AH: There is no supporting material

AH: the time to share this was in your WS
NW: it may have been useful to put that in but as a scientist I would have looked for that info
AH: how?

AH: we must set aside anonymous donors as they tell us nothing
NW: yes

AH: we have to put aside anonymous donors because they mean nothing
NW: no
AH: the only detail is the last one, the campaign in March for ONS and that raised 101,000 with over 3000 supporters, correct?
NW: yes

AH: And you "chose" sex depending on first name?
NW: Volunteer did that stage
AH: did you re-check?
NW: No

AH: Some names are ambiguous, mine (Andrew) is "andrea" in Italian. What about those?
NW: We omitted ambiguous names
AH: What percentage?
NW: Not sure

AH: we have not seen underlying data
NW: no
AH: why not?
NW: didn't think court would want it - can supply

AH: Org is called fair play for Women - might that make women more likely to donate?
NW: could be
AH: Might not be indicative of general population
NW: no

IO: [intervenes] - we could perhaps break?
EJ: We will take 5 minute break and resume 11.10

[Court is on a short break]

[Court resumes]

AH: Dr Williams you mention other organisations that also campaign in this area. You say that the people that run these are on good terms and often go to each other's events. You say, well attended, and overwhelmingly female.

NW: Yes, that's from my experience attending the meetings.

AH: You didn't say from your own experience.

AH: And you are inviting the tribunal to draw conclusion from that that women are more likely to be supporters of gender critical feminism.

NW: that is the point of those meetings.

AH: but people might not go to meetings.
NW: Of course. But the meetings are the people that are *active*. That donate. That speak up.

AH: that is the basis for indirect discrimination claim
NW: that is my evidence, that in my experience many more women.

AH: [helps NW navigate to a page in bundle]
NW: doing that but this is the wrong page
EJ: [suggests alternative method using index]
NW: No, that's not working. Let me try to scroll to the page.

NW: check page number 4969? I am close
NW: OK Am there

AH: This is survey July 2020 carried out.
AH: Asks about views on transgender issues
AH: Intro has been cut out, will read
AH: Says last week govt announced consultation on selfID, and that a pinknews/yougov poll has found majority pro self ID but decline since 2019

AH: Says another yougov survey a week earlier had taken comprehensive look at attitudes, breaking down by sex, age, political allegiance.

AH: "Summary of British attitudes to transgender rights" - includes Q that people should be able to self-ID, Q that transwomen are women transmen are men, Q whether medical diagnosis, Q, whether 2 year wait

AH: and has colour coding of results

AH: so Q here: "a transwoman is a woman" - fundamental point for gender critical feminism?

NW: it's more about sex - is a transwoman male or female. The word "woman" has become confusing.

AH: Here we see that women shown "green" - yes - and it's men that show "red" - no.

NW: yes. But we have found that when you ask about actual policy areas, and ask questions differently, for example specifying anatomy, answers change.

AH: But they are asking a lot of questions and it does show the breakdown men/women - it asks about some policy areas eg sport. This is a comprehensive list of Qs.
NW: yes

AH: Conclusions here - says men and women hold opposing views. Says nearly half of women accept self ID but only about 30% of men do. This is the opposite of what you are saying

NW: No, the Q is do you accept the identify. I for example do accept ID of a TW. What I say is that sometimes, when sex matters, it matters. This Q just says "do you support TG rights" and people do, I do.

NW: The point is the people that understand that when sex matters it matters, and they are mostly women. Both things can be true.

AH: no they can't. The Q re self ID is not ambiguous.
NW: No it's not at all.
AH: Women are pro self ID of gender
NW: as am I

AH: Q re is TW a woman - women agree.
NW: The word woman is unhelpful here. The point is sex is male.

AH: I ask you as a scientist.
NW: I think respecting the identity of a TG person is a separate Q from what that implies for single sex spaces. A TW is male. Both things can be true. Sex and gender identify are different

AH: no further Qs

IO: no Qs from me
BC: No re-examination from me.

EJ: Dr Williams, end of your evidence. Thank you

EJ: Next witness is Dr Green
AH: JR will question Dr Green.

EJ: introduces Dr Green.
DrG: affirms truth, whole truth, nothing but truth

BC: confirms with DrG - this is your statement (my copy isn't signed) - have you re-read recently, is this true statement
DrG: yes

[discussion of bundles and updates, it appears some people have gaps]

JR: missing "bundle" was sent yesterday, from SW
EJ: exact time? Will help us find it
JR: I think about 15.40pm

BC: DrG do you have this supplementary bundle?
DrG: no
BC: Peter Daly will send you at least the relevant part

EJ: Have asked clerk to read. Is it practical to read it out? How long is it?

IO: was sent to Mr Daly I think perhaps he can forward

EJ: We can't make any progress then at present. Please email also to clerk personally not just the overall court address.

EJ: how long is document?
JR: 4 pages
JR: will only be looking at first 2 today
EJ: If it can be linked in chat meanwhile?
JR: Will take instruction - good solution if we can

BC: Mr Daly has done that - link in chat

[everyone looks at the 2 pages JR has requested]

EJ: [checks everyone is up to speed]

JR: formalities?
BC: DrG has confirmed statement and I have no Qs.

JR: Dr Green what are you doctor of?
DrG: History
EJ: [did not hear]
DrG: History

JR: You are co-founder of A Woman's Place
DrG yes

JR: Aims of org - women's voices heard in all areas, womens rights upheld in law and policy
DrG: yes

JR: 5 "resolutions" here - [reads out]
JR: True that all these, poss bar last ("sex matters"), would be supported by most people?
DrG: yes

JR: Mostly not gender critical?

DrG: these are not 5 discrete resolutions - "sex matters", that women are oppressed because of sex, runs through the whole set. They are all related.

JR: not quite an answer. Women's rights is a broader political issue than gender critical feminism

DrG: yes there are many strands and there is disagreement.

JR: Please read paragraph 4 - begins "we are a women's rights campaign". You don't describe yourselves as gender critical, in fact you don't really like the description

DrG: We feel that the ET [Forstater] definition - sex binary, immutable, matters - is a necessary but not a complete part of our campaign.
JR: long answer to short question!

JR: your statement says a Woman's Place is described as gender critical but that's not how you describe yourselves, your campaign is wider. Is that so?

DrG: gender critical feminism is necessary but not sufficient for our campaign - sex matters to both men and women but we are a women's rights campaign it matters more to women

JR: gender critical not important to campaigning on MVAW

DrG: of course sex matters to that issue

JR; Not exclusive to that though
DrG: not sure I understand

JR: there is a very longstanding history of feminism that has nothing to do with gender critical belief. Mary Wollstonecraft, suffragettes

Dr G: suffragettes didn't have the vote because of their sex. Sex mattered to them of course

JR: You are here to give evidence about women more likely to support gender critical feminism and lesbians also.

DrG: yes

JR: WPUK have organised a number of meetings. Open to all. Youtube only shows number of views. You have no data on who has viewed the videos

DrG: we do on who has attended meetings

JR: no way to know sex or sexual orientation of youtube viewers

DrG: No and I have not said so?

DrG: I am referring to active support, not youtube.

JR: You talk of youtube in your statement, but you can't draw any conclusion from youtube.

DrG: no, the paragraph is about our events, and it just says we put them on youtube. You can cross out the sentence re youtube, it's just context.

JR: Why did you put it in?
DrG: just for context

JR: You say 38-odd meetings. No data - apart from the UCL one.

DrG: No, we don't normally ask/monitor. But my direct experience is that the ovewhelming majority of attendees are women. Perhaps up to 10 men at larger meetings, 2/3 at smaller

DrG: And when we do collect data - the UCL conference - of those who answered, 350 women and 7 men.

JR: have not got there yet. I want to distinguish. Data from conference we'll get to. Otherwise anecdotal?

DrG: my personal experience.

JR: no facts and figures.
DrG: My observation.
JR: no number?
DrG. No

JR: now the conference - nearly 1000 attendees, nearly 400 answers, 350 to 7.
DrG: Yes
JR: nearly 2/3 did not answer
DrG: no

JR: No data from other meetings.

DrG: No. My experience; the experience of everyone else at all those meetings.

JR: You are using your own experience of a small organisation to draw conclusion about whole population.

DrG: No, I'm talking about the people that are politically engaged. Not making a "whole population" statement.

JR: No broader conclusion?
DrG: No, talking about supports of gender critical feminism. Women are more likely than men to be supporters of gender critical feminism.

DrG: Women are disporportionately represented as supporters of gender critical feminism

JR: but that's based on just one sample, 350/7

DrG: No, it's based on all my direct experience.

JR: Not surprising that an org called a Woman's Place attracts women?

DrG: agree

JR: And conference analysis does not talk about lesbians at all

DrG: no we didn't collect that data

JR: Or data on whether attendees hold gender critical beliefs?

DrG: No we didn't collect.

JR {suggests 5 minute break]
EJ: [agrees]

[BREAK]

JR: DrG, supporters as a concept is broader than just meetings.
DrG: yes
JR: to extrapolate from attendees to general population doesn't work does it
DrG: supporters could include supporting campaigns eg writing to MPs

JR: You talk about followers on facebook, you have woman in your name, will attract women
DrG: yes

JR: Bit of a leap to use facebook follower analysis then?

DrG: The statement is, 'women more likely than men to be supporters of gender critical feminism' - our engagement figures tend to show that

JR: But you can't extrapolate to general pop
DrG: No, and the statement "women more likely" doesn't do that or try to

JR: You say Twitter analytics doesn't show sex or gender
DrG: Yes
JR: So it doesn't support the statement
DrG: No, I'm pointing out that Twitter analytics are limited

JR: Though it does appear that over 60% of Twitter users are men. Undermines your statement.

DrG: No that's re Twitter as a whole, not re our own engagement on Twitter

JR: You say though that you think your twitter engagement is much more woman- dominate than Twitter in general. Anecdotal?

DrG yes our own experience

JR: what does engagment mean?

DrG: replies, retweets, quote tweets,

JR: Any analysis done?
DrG: No - Twitter doesn't offer, there may be other software but we don't have.

JR: Assertion. No data.
DrG: Our experience
JR: Your impression
DrG: yes

JR: No mention of the views of the people that engage? Or of lesbians?
DrG: No

JR: You say you have used first names to determine sex.
DrG: Yes
JR: Might not be real names
DrG: Correct.
JR: Often can't tell what "sex" names are
DrG: Yes

JR: And you can't tell whether someone is gender critical from their first name.
DrG: No, and I have not said that.
JR: Can't tell if a lesbian from first name.
DrG: No of course.

JR: very woolly

DrG: What we can tell from mailing list - leaving out just-initials etc - 96% of where we can determine, have female names.

JR: There are some ambigous names?
DrG: Yes, and those are in the 4% we could not try to analyse

JR: Can't tell belief from name
DrG: no but subsribing to a newsleetter is indicative

JR: No infomation on lesbians
DrG: No we don't ask

JR: So you are just guessing about attendees.
DrG: No, that's more from meeting and talking after meetings and actually finding out. It's not relevant when we are selling tickets but you often find out.

JR: Your own experience only?
DrG: Of course, but other members of WPUK would say the same

JR: this is a tinygroup of people, people who chair and speak.
DrG: yes

JR: 38 meetings, 117 engagments - pls clarify?
DrG: meetings have multiple speakers, 117 speeches.

JR: Some speakers do more than one meeting. Less than 117 *speakers*?
DrG: yes

JR: Only evidence you give re lesbians is from that group of chairs and speakers?
DrG: Yes those are the only people I gave numbers for

JR: It's just your opinion that lesbians more likeey to be supporter?
DrG: It's my experience

BC: witness has made clear she has made no statemetn about "lesbians as a group" and claimant case doesn't rely on that

JR: I don't understand, and, please address in re-examination?

BC: I wished to help avoid a line of questioning not helpful that's all

Dr G: I think that "sex is binary, immutable, important" is very likely to be widely held in the general population - that's what my statement is about

Dr G: I was not asked to give evidence about the general population.
JR: Just about your supporters
Dr G: Yes that is what I asked about.

JR: But you have given no number of supporters

Dr G: No - I've given different figures eg attending meetings, twitter followers, we are not a membership org

JR: Let's look at the survey already discussed with NW.
JR: You agree yougov is professional pollster.
DrG: yes

JR: more reliable data than yours

DrG: Re general population yes. My statement is about supporters of gender critical feminism.

JR: Let us look at the section about access, in context of "where sex matters".

JR: says re TW in women's changing rooms - women say yes, men say no.

[reads other Qs - says women support, men don't]

JR: all those are Qs where "sex matters"
DrG: yes
JR: And women agree that TW should be allowed, more than men. Opposite of what you say

DrG: Q's don't define TW; and when they ask the same Qs and define self-ID ie no surgery answers are different
JR: No evidence of that
DrG: please scroll down where Q is asked. Results are different. Poll illustrates that views change with greater understsanding

JR: It's about proportions. Both disgree. That's not what you say, that men and women differ

DrG: My statement is not about general population, it's about people that actively engage.

JR: This evidence is directly opposite to what you claim in your statement. Men and women equally against.
DrG: No, because I have not said anything in my statement about the general population. My statement is about active supporters. It's a different thing.

JR: No further Qs

IO: No questions from me

BC: no re-examination

EJ: DrG you are free to go. End of witnesses for today?
BC: yes

IO: would like to raise one matter. There is a Q in chat about downloading docs. Can I ask court to re-state that docs are for reading, not downloading, this may be important later.

EJ: Yes will clarify that for actual copies court must be contacted.
JR: Collateral use - this is important - supplementary bundle was downloadable bcs of special circs
EJ: Indeed. For Tuesday please make sure read-only bundles are available

JR: No witness statements should be downloadable.
JR: Also ruling re redactions?

EJ: Yes but court must discuss - case management separately later

BC: Apology for downloadable-ness of the one document - happened because so last-minute and was error - we will attempt not to happen again and invite GC and SW to do same

BC: for purposes of links in chat for public, they will be non-downloadable, but viewable.
BC: separately: once document referred to by tribunal it is in public domain - is our position.

EJ: We will discuss in case management. Hard to see how public can read all this bundle during hearing. We should perhaps sort out downloadables; we will discuss.

EJ: Shall we case-manage immediately after disconnection or later?
IO: Now please
EJ: We will do that. I am now ending public hearing: we resume 10:00 Tuesday morning
[ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll