Now talking is @MForstater - I have a precedent using my name - audience cheers and claps.
‘My case was about the completely ordinary belief that there are men and women… we can’t stop perceiving this. Now I am a single issue campaigner with @SexMattersOrg
The creation of bogus data, generated by the malicious or the hysterical, is not a ‘win’ for anyone. It seems clear that ‘communities’ which rely on this are generating greater ill feeling from other sections of the population.
The great lie that perception based reporting of 'crime' will prevent the 'crime' from happening. Let's not forget the 12 pages of my 'crimes' that were reported to and recorded by Wiltshire police - who a year and £12k in costs later, conceded they had acted unlawfully.
reported under the category of 'hatred towards transgender individuals' was a picture of my dog looking sad. I had written 'my dog would call me a Nazi for cheese'. 12 pages of this. No conceivable crime at all. Yet I was recorded as 'a barrister posting hate'.
This was used to bolster complaints to my regulator, as if I had already been tried and convicted. It was nothing but a gift to the malicious and the trouble maker. The College of Policing further conceded before the Court of Appeal -
FWIW nobody believes anyone can change sex. What we do need however is to find a way to accommodate those who want to be seen as the opposite sex and those who resist any such recognition. As ever, I think both groups often go too far in insisting on 'their way or the highway'.
It's difficult because harassment is very fact and context specific. The EAT suggested that 'gratuitous and indiscriminate' misgendering would likely be harassment regardless of the protected belief of the person doing it. I think that's a sensible starting point.
If I were sexually assaulted and giving evidence in a criminal court about my attacker, I would use whatever pronouns I thought were appropriate. If the person was male, I would refer to them as 'he'. Their 'self identification' in those circumstances would be of no importance.
Using a binder to compress the chest is a medical issue as it is likely to cause injury including damage to lungs and ribs. Mermaids told a Tribunal they did not give medical advice, had not read or only skimmed the Cass Review.
To send a binder to a 13 year old who had explicitly said their parents would not give consent is an unlawful erosion of the parents parental responsibility. I would be interested to see Mermaids risk and capacity assessments for these children. I suspect there are none.
Because this is the organisation remember which sees no distinction between a 3 year old or a 17 year old - if a child says they are trans, they are trans. If they want cross sex hormones, then refer them to Gender GP.
Confusion around the extent and limitations of parental responsibility seems widespread. Gillick not confined to contraception- endorsed more general point