you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]artetolife[S] 33 insightful - 4 fun33 insightful - 3 fun34 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

(LGB relevant since the clinic was essentially practicing conversion therapy in many cases).

I'm really pleasantly surprised at this. Usually those two orgs are the first to be invited to the table whenever LGBT issues are involved. But I guess the judge did not think "you can be a barbie or a GI Joe" was a suitable standard of evidence 🤭

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most likely they are blocked as beneficiary of the case, so their opinion will not be unbiased regarding the case.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obviously I don't know the British legal standards here but just from an outside logical standpoint, the case involves what is essentially medical malpractice. Mermaids and stonewall are purely opinion based political organizations. They could cite actual medical data but then why not just go to the primary source for the legal proceedings? They and we are just so used to them being coddled and given special privileges.