Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon; this is the afternoon session in the hearing of @Mermaids_Gender v @ChtyCommission & @ALLIANCELGB

Our substack page on the case, with hearings from previous days, is here tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mermaids-vs-…

Tweeting from this morning's hearing is here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1569580…

We expect the afternoon session to begin shortly after 2pm, when the evidence of Dr Belinda Bell (Mermaids Chair of Trustees) will continue.

Abbreviations:

J or Judge - Judge Lynn Griffin, Presiding Judge,
AJ - Judge Joe Neville, Assistant to Judge

MM - Mermaids, the appellant
MG - Michael Gibbon KC, Counsel for Mermaids

CC - Charity Commission, the first respondent
IS - Iain Steele, Charity Commission counsel

LGBA - LGB Alliance, the second respondent
KM - Karon Monaghan KC - Counsel for LGBA
AR - Akua Reindorf, Assistant to KM

Current witness:
BB - Belinda Bell, Chair of Trustees at MM

Previous witnesses:
PR - Paul Roberts, CEO LGBT Consortium
JN - John Nicolson MP

The court has given permission for us to live-tweet proceedings.

[We resume]
[I have lost my connecton - apologies till we get re-started]

Discussing BITWB. The language has changed over the 25 yrs we've been in existence
KM Schools guidance says this shouldnt be used anymore. You change this narrative the day after the guidance saying not to say this

BB This wasnt part of decision as I recall

Discussions around 'born in the wrong body narrative. BB explains terms have evolved but some T ppl still use it.
KM - Ed Dept published guidance not to use. You made a statement following this you wouldn't promote that narrative
BB: I have no recollection of this guidance being

the reason though. Was emerging discussion. If so we managed to respond v quickly.
KM: would you have been involved in consultation on DoE guidance?
BB: dont know
KM: met with civil servants / ministers involved?
BB: would like to , dont know in this case

We shouldn't do anything linking to gender stereotypes. Cannot say their personlity or body is wrong. So BITWB shouldn't be used as a narrative

BB Yes. This isn't simple s some trans people like this description

KM reading through the guidance. If LGBA were to have criticised the narrative born in wrong body that would not have been problematic?
BB: complicated. DoE is guidance not fact on lived reality of t ppl lives. it seems ok as guidance to me but some t ppl use the term

<missed> BB discussing the appeal has been crowdfunded and is not using mermaids resources.
KM: you've given us a list of part. concerns around LGBA. Reads out LGBA mission statement around protecting kids from 'unscientific gender doctrines' and BITWB. Theres no problem

with that is there?
BB: Well the language seems weighted 'unscientific' etc and talking about it leading to medical procedures is postulated...
KM: But wouldn't cause you to q LGBA charitable status?
BB: Well its bundled up together...

KM moving on to LGBA schools material. LGBA dont think children should be confused or upset by ideology, agree?
BB: not the way we would speak about this issue to kids
KM: But reflects what Cass found that we need to be careful
BB: I think Cass didn't use the word ideology

KM: used belief. moving on - if child isn't gender conforming shouldn't lead educator to say trans
BB: agree not appropriate
KM: A GNC child eg girl who plays football might well be led to think trans ...
BB: No this is section 28, being trans is not easy, implausible

KM: Template letter here about RSE guidance and 'what we cannot accept that children should be taught can be BITWB'
BB: I cant believe that was being taught

KM: one of your concerns for bringing this appeal was a news report on 'self diagnosis' (quote by Beverley Jackson)
BB: yes wrong
KM: but one of Cass concerns was about about affirmation and lack of exploration
BB: I think you are putting things together there

KM: moving on you refer to evidence that LGBA gave to HoC Women and Equality Committee about BITWB narrative. They are entitled to give evidence about their concerns?
BB: yes
KM: there has been this narrative?
BB: yes but even so schools teach about gender and

sexuality in a neutral way

KM: LGBA discussing transition and regret is a poorly researched area , you admit?
BB: it seems it is but new paper in August, Paediatric magazine saying 97% or still trans 5 yrs later
KM: 5 yrs not long is it?
BB: interesting isn't it
KM: but not problematic what LGBA is saying?

<missed> KM moving on to discuss conversion therapy and 'training away the gay' You weren't happy with this stance
BB: Distressing and miscontrual
KM: But you will know that this aligns with Cass report about affirming non-exploratory approach in GIDS

BB: Technically I dont think that's what GIDS did
KM: discussing Boris Johnson announcing trans would not be incl. in ban on c. therapy
BB: extremely distressing
KM: reason was concern that therapeutic intervention could be penalised
BB: that was stated reason but not been

a problem anywhere else relevant in the world.
KM: Moving on, other reasons for your appeal: 'gay teens aren't sick' is not problematic is it?
BB: it is, I dont want gay teens or trans teens written on side of a bus in London

Deeply problematic. Utterly inappropriate way of having a civilised debate and reductionist. Only 9% of t people are straight.
KM: They expressed concerns about medicalisation of gay children. Its reasonable even if you dont like the vehicle for the message.

BB: no, not in that way.
KM: moving on to meetings of LGBA with politicians and SPADS which you found out about via FOIR. ok isn't it?
BB: dont know if FOIR was us. yes but we dont put things on side of vans

KM: Times investigation around concerns at GIDS and conversion therapy for gay youth. They spoke to clinical staff. The fact there are concerns doesn't have no evidential basis does it?
BB: its a Times investigation
KM: yes but not problematic to be concerned?

BB: clearly anyone would be concerned if that was going on. I dont put much worth on a newspaper investigation. 'Transing away the gay' is deeply offensive, like 'Praying away the gay'. Dont understand why we are aligning with this.
KM: Medical pathway that girls could be put on

here, that's why
BB: They could be trans. Believing what kids say is a good opening

KM: You refer to a report that indicates nothing to worry about re PBs, para 38 but a study by Tavistock records 43/44 prescribed PBs went on to x-sex hormones yes?
BB:Yes so clinicians right re PBs
KM: Or children getting locked in to a pathway.

Although you say +ve evidence its a more mixed picture. BB: Im no clinician but I suggested 'anticipated adverse affects' were headaches etc or side effects from the drugs.

KM: 1094, analysis of applications for GRS in Sweden over 50 years. This article is concerned with legal detranstition, so not medical
BB: I dont know legal set up in Sweden and if similar GRC process etc
KM: Exactly, so this doesnt help us much here on the detransition q?
BB: no

<Judge intervenes to check whether BB needs to refresh her memory>
BB: I suppose my point with this is that legal transition is difficult. I don't dismiss this paper as 50 years of evidence that's why I included it
KM: 1105, your next article shows a low level of detransition

A US research piece?
BB: data sets are global though
KM: its been subject to a good deal of criticism though
BB: I dont know
KM: lets turn to the blog that critiques this in the bundle. Im making the point there is very little evidence and what there is is controversial.

< some queries about who wrote the blog , someone will confirm>
BB: its not peer reviewed and not my understanding of how data works
KM: Lets move to tweets you have highlighted. Some 2.5 yrs ago, one in Oct, one in Jan. Where do we see MM being....
BB: yes well we see MM

sometimes by name and sometimes with illusions to GI lobby. When say GI lobby, its us

KM: Next tweets where you say accuse MM of promoting GRS, lobbies for lowering of age for PBs - do you advocate for that?
BB: it can seem surprising for 10/11 yo but that's when its needed, before puberty. Im not a clinician , wouldn't say we lobby hard for it

To be clear we do not lobby for surgery for children. This does not happen and its misleading to say that and this cant be an oversight to say we advocate for this - clear untruth

KM: cites further tweets
BB: I dont think there is doubt that Alison Bailey and Malcolm Clark are part of LGBA family whatever that means
KM: 142, again a list of tweets, 7, they are 2020 to 2021. Most of them are nearly 2 years old except for 1 in Dec 21
BB: Not all tweets one

letter
KM: yes sorry
BB: also I think you are trying to say LGBA has moderated its language since becoming a charity which I suspect is true

KM: you say charitable status helps it expand its reach etc... since it seeks to destroy MM rep it does affect MM funding. But ordinary to seek to expand reach etc?
BB: yes but here denigrating T ppl
KM: the only thing you can draw on to support that are those docs in your

evidence and your statements today?
BB: yes
KM: One last q. Go to core bundle

There was one matter re standing. You need to identify the fact that you are affected. You give one reason that unless quashed MM will suffer financial loss as competing for donations with LGBA. So you think ppl would donate to them rather than to you?

BB: I dont think same person would choose between the two of us but public at large could be put off by what LGBA puts in the public domain about us. Grants could also be affected

KM: No more q madam.
IS has no questions.
MG: One q. You were asked about Cass and used phrase 'system is not working'. It wasn't clear to me what you meant
BB: I think I meant NHS, CAMHS. Stories we hear on our helplines. They try to get to GP, GP dont have knowledge where

to refer sometimes GIDS sometimes CAMHS first.

JN asking for clarification about earlier evidence.
Judge: Lets take short break now. We also asked for copy of genderbread diagram that we haven't received. Can this be sorted.
Break for 10 mins.

[Hearing is resuming]

KM: Was asked about a reference. [references to bundles, page numbers, bundles - this is clearly up a Q asked by JN just before break, "position" versus "beliefs" - KM clarifying that these were 2 different references]

KM: Will now call our first witness Bev Jackson [BJ]
KM: This is your statement? Signed by you?
BJ: yes
KM: True statement?
BJ: Yes

MG: Will start with Q about chronology.
[sound quality v poor - clerk checking mic]

MG: [sound still terrible - I think he is laying out BJ statement of beliefs - sex binary, immutable]

Clerk: [intervenes re sound quality]

[Proceedings pause while they try to sort this out]

[MG to use KM mic which is working - sound is better]

MG: BB says LGBA falls in broader "gender critical" area - says people can't genuinely transition. Is that what you say?
BJ: This para has many claims, first is not correct -
MG: Apols, I meant just that point

BJ: By "cannot genuinely transition" I would mean, cannot in fact change sex, and that if change in legal sex is made that is a legal fiction as it were.

MG: Sex immutable?
BJ: Yes
MG: With GRC, becomes "for all purposes". You would draw distinction legal sex vs biological sex.
BJ: Quite.

MG: So re gender-critical beliefs generally. There's no pledge or anything
BJ: Certainly no
MG: [fumbling a Q, BJ asks to clarify]

MG: Asking whether there are things that consequently flow from basic gender critical belief.
BJ: Would need an example.
MG: EG in Allison Bailey case, that Stonewall is homophobic. Court found, protected belief. Am asking if that is part of gender-critical.

BJ: Not sure I can help here?
MG: Here is full passage from that tribunal
[BJ is reading]
MG: Not going to cross-ex re the law, only on terminology. It says AB belief that is protected include SW campaigining on gender theory is sexist, homophobic.

MG: Says, AB says sex immutable, gender indefinable. Says, SW is redefining homosexuality, defines heterosexual men as lesbians. Says, homophobic, denies reality of sexuality.
MG: Tribunal finds this belief is protected (tho takes no view wehther AB is correct)

MG: Are AB's views there inevitable consequence of gender critical belief

BJ: if "sexuality" is based on unobservable GI instead of actual sex, then if expressed extremely yes detrimental to lesbians, see eg lesbians removed from Pride march

MG You are saying only homophobic if expressed in a particular way?
[pause]
BJ: No, inherently homophobic; erases reality of homosexuality.

MG: You say G-C beliefs not anti-trans
BJ: Yes
MG: An independent 3rd party without GC views might disagree
BJ: Very insulting to be called transphobic. Cliche to mention I have trans friends. Small but growing no trans supporters. Many trans peole v aware what sex they are

BJ: I campaigned 50 years ago about same-sex orientation. People are now trying to undo that.

MG: You say in WS: from LGBA PoV there is a gender identity lobby, you list many orgs inc MM and SW. You lump many orgs together who don't share LGBA GC views.
BJ: Yes listing orgs that claim everyone has a gender identity, which we dispute

MG: "lobby" implies concerted approach.
BJ: Yes. Joint letters often sent for example.
MG: It's a long list. You are not saying all controlled together or anything?
BJ: No, but similarity of agenda is striking.

BJ: eg when we campaigned re GRA in Scotland, there was a campaign with about 60 orgs about us
MG: maybe they all just disagreed
BJ: doubt it we are too small for all to notice separately

MG: You say here, do LGBA sometimes avoid saying "trans" at all and you say yes bcs often overshadows discussion of LGB rights. So we are left to deduce what LBGA thinks re trans from other things you say. Eg male bodied for transwomen.

BJ: Yes we have to - unfortunate we have to say "male bodied", some people would simply to prefer to say "men". We are asked constantly why we had to form, why no trans, already lots of LGBT orgs. We have had to have position from the start.

MG: We have to make deductions from absence of T in your name. From you not saying "trans" much.
BJ: Many many orgs worldwide started as LGB; we felt that was getting lost; never occurred to us we'd *have* to deal re trans bcs LBG getting lost.

MG: Deliberate choice to exclude
BJ: No this is wrong. There is no Q or + or anything else either in our name, only LGB. This is a group with its own needs

MG: V offensive to LGB people who don't share your GC views, and to trans people, to be called homophobes
BJ: can you break down?
MG: Offensive to call people who don't agree with you homophobes

BJ: Need to say first, we support trans rights in Equality Act, protection from discrimination etc. We don't accept that people can change sex. Some people may be offended, sure; we are offended that men can declare themselves lesbians.

MG: You are calling LGB people homophobes. Very offensive.
BJ: I am Jewish and have been called anti-semitic. But we have to be able to tell the truth, and it seems to me that at present lesbians are more marginalised than trans people.

BJ: It's not a competition, and not sure it helps anyone to make out it is.

MG: I suggest the word "homophobe" is a constant theme. Open letter from you to Taiwo Owatemi talks of new kind of homophobes, lesbians to have sex with new lesbians with penises meaning men.

BJ: Yes thought hard before writing that. Remembering my own life experience, men joking "I feel like a lesbian inside". Thinking of lesbians being excluded from Pride, having their own march protested. Lesbians are being excluded from own movement.

MG: Still in the letter to TO. You say TO says LGBA opposes LGBTQ+ education but that this is not true, you support education but object to pushing of born-in-the-wrong-body and gender identity theory.

BJ: We say all education including RSE should be based on facts. Teaching that some people are gay, have gay parents, those are facts. Gender identiy is not a fact. We hear of children coming home from school distressed they might have to change sex.

MG: That is anecdotal.
MG: It is central to your thinking that sex is immutable.
BJ: That is well known biological fact.
MG: You think that fact should be taught
BJ: Well yes.

MG: Back to your WS. You say LGBTQ+ groups serve the interest of the TQ+ who think sexuality depends on identity. Could it not be that it is in solidarity with trans rights.
BJ: I say that. That there can be solidarity.

BJ: Have said, I support trans rights, don't dispute trans rights.

MG: Why should it be limited to people that make an assertion?
[pause]
BJ: perhaps poor choice of words, should I have said believe?
MG: Same Q
BJ. Perhaps they are afraid to disagree, we see this often.

MG: Could just be people supporting. Not browbeaten.
BJ: Every day we get messages from people saying they are afraid to disagree.

MG: No objective way to measure that -
BJ: No indeed, and we intend to research.

MG: Here we have some tweets. From LGBAlliance. Say it's not just about toilets, it's about lesbians having to accept male bodied people in dating pools or be called transphobic. I suggest a) this is commenting on trans and b) typical overstatement.

BJ: Disagree. We heard yesterday, if a lesbian says on dating site she's only interested in women and gets thrown off, that's a lesbian issue. Not a trans issue.

MG: says "mandatory" to accept in dating pool
BJ: Depends what you mean by dating pool - there it is meaning eg dating site.
MG: Do we have evidence of that here?
BJ: Not sure.

MG: This is a typical overstatment.
BJ: No it's shifting the emphasis. I think people became aware that focussing on gender identity was having detriment for women some years ago. Realisation that LGB people developed slower.

BJ: So this tweet is doing that, focus on LGB, particularly the L.

MG: PR said no org pressing anyone to sleep with anyone, you accept?
BJ: Yes
BJ: But if you say that a lesbian cannot on dating site say she is only interested in women, that's a problem.

MG: Here you have tweet, responding to Merseyside Police LGBTQ+. You say "bringning police into disrepute, this is a political issue".

BJ: Am saying it is not for the police to engage in controversial social issues of this kind.

BJ: If police are promoting rights of people who focus on gender identity while people who focus on sex are vilified, police should not take a side. Failure to recognise conflict is a problem in itself.

MG: But you are engaging in these controversial social issues yourselves.
BJ: Am highlighting that police should not.
MG: That is being engage..
BJ: Yes, engaged in LGB rights, our purpose.
MG: I said, engaged in controversial issue.

BJ. Yes but I am not the police. Police should represent all of us.

MG: That is the end of a topic - can we discuss timings - submissions when?
[discussion of length required for things, when to take]

J: OK then we won't expect submissions until Thursday. And this is a convenient time to break I think. We note that AR will participate remotely tomorrow not in person.

J: reminds BJ that on oath overnight, must not discuss with anyone. Will start again 10.00 tomorrow.

[END OF DAY]

@threadreaderapp please unroll