you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LtGreenCo 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

This is some Olympics level mental gymnastics right here.

[–]Datachost[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Just a further attempt to square the circle. I guess they're hoping if they use big words like "subconscious" people won't notice that this is the same "A woman is anyone that identifies as one" bullshit they've already tried.

For more word salad nonsense TribunalTweets are currently live tweeting Mermaids attempt to get the LGB Alliance stripped of their charity status and one of Mermaid's witnesses is getting torn apart by Akua Reindorf. Turns out that's what happens when you have to explain this nonsense to a competent lawyer.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You weren’t kidding about the shredding that is occurring in the witness box.

AR - you don’t see that there are any conflicts between LGB and T rights.

R - I see that some might disagree.

AR - but you are exclusive of people who disagree with including T with LGB.

R - we are not inclusive of this who exclude T

AR - you expect members to be inclusive. An org that focuses on gay men must include trans gay men

R - yes.

AR - that means that an org that focuses on gay men, must include people who are born female, but identify as men and are exclusively attracted to gay men.

R - legally recognised as men.

AR - what do you mean as legally recognised?

R - refers to the Equality Act,

AR - we will say that a trans man who does not have a GRC for purposes of the Eq Act remains a woman.

R - I would disagree with that.

AR - going back to the example, anyone who identifies as a man is quite a wide population.

R - yes.

AR - may not have surgery or taken hormones etc

R -yes

AR - so we are talking about self-identification.

R - yes.

AR - you mean that they are literally men?

AR - they are literally men?

R - no, there would be differences but my understanding is that they are men under the law

AR - what do you mean differences?

R - a trans man might need services that a trans woman would not.

AR - do you believe that trans men are men literally?

R - I would disagree.

AR - On what basis?

R - I believe that anyone who identifies as a man is a man.

AR - self id is based on belief is it not?

R - yes.

AR - there is no objective difference therefore between a trans man and a trans woman.

R - you keep using the word literally, what do you mean.

AR - actually, objectively.

R - trans men are men and should be treated as such.

AR - orgs must accept that a person with a female body can be a gay man. it is transphobic to say otherwise.

R - if someone is being Denied access to a service yes.

AR - do you believe it is transphobic to say that someone with a female body cannot be a gay man?

R - yes, I agree.

Akua Reindorf is just poking holes in the ideology and it’s going to be glorious when all the holes connect and the centre drops out.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The good stuff comes after that imo

AR - going on to surgery, these surgeries are irreversible?
PR - Not an expert.
AR - and that makes them sterile.
PR - I guess
AR - can you understand that ‘transing away the gay’ is something that would be of concern to a charity that worries about LGB rights
PR - I don’t believe that transing away the gay happens
AR - Iran?

[–]Datachost[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

AR - and that makes them sterile. PR - I guess

Jesus Christ, the callousness. "That makes they sterile" "Fucking maybe"

[–]iamonlyoneman 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

sterilizing children because of mental disease used to be considered a crime against humanity but what do I know

[–]ClassroomPast6178 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There’s some bullshit this afternoon where the Mermaids representative claims not to have done more than skim read the Cass report, just so they can avoid confirming its findings. Like people at Mermaids didn’t devour that report over and over in order to develop strategies to spin it.

[–]Datachost[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Apparently that still didn't stop LGBT Consortium from signing a declaration criticising the report even though their CEO has just admitted in court he's barely read it. So he's either just committed perjury or just admitted he's making decisions based on information other people have given him

John Nicolson MSP on the stand tomorrow, which ought to be fun, since that man has a hate boner for the LGBA so long lasting that

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

🤯

[–]Datachost[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think what this shows is a further incident of a point someone made about a recent case involving Sheffield's NHS Trust involving discrimination, which is that the law is getting the comparator entirely wrong when it comes to discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. What Mermaids and many other organisations are arguing is that in not treating a female like a male (in this case a gay organisation being allowed to exclude them on the basis of being female), they're discriminating against them, because they're not treating them like a man. But that isn't, or at least shouldn't be, the comparator for gender reassignment. What it should be is, are they treating her the same as anyone who doesn't have that characteristic, in other words, are they treating her the same as they would any other woman, who doesn't have the characteristic of gender reassignment. That's how it is for any of the other protected characteristics (bar maybe disability, where you can discriminate by not providing adequate accommodations) and that's how it should be for gender reassignment too.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

makes my head swim to think of this when I'm tired.

[–]ID10T 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Off-topic: it’s really weird seeing KC after barristers’ names.

[–]Datachost[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've seen people say it took them a few minutes to realise what KC was supposed to mean and then it clicked