An interesting topic for this particular chambers.
Garden Court Chambers advertise a seminar at which they propose to discuss “anti-trans belief in the workplace”. It comes to the attention of various gender-critical types, lawyers and others, and some of us decide to go. Of course we do: we’ve been #NoDebated, demonised and shunned for years, and here’s a bunch of lawyers on the other side proposing to talk in public about our subject.
We’re interested to know how they think employers should handle pesky people like us, and besides we think it will be fun to ask them some questions.
So several of us book promptly. We get an acknowledgment the same day that describes us as delegates, gives details of time and place, and contains no hint that we may still be awaiting confirmation of a place. We note our diaries; one of us steers conferences onto the day, to make best use of travel time.
At this point, presumably someone at GCC looks at the delegate list and says, “Oh fuck oh fuck, omg I need a cup of tea, whatever shall we do, the TERFs are coming!” Emails, panicky calls, squawks of alarm by WhatsApp. There is an approaching army of at least four or five terrifyingly polite, reasonable women. One can understand their fear.
The speakers no doubt tear (a) out their hair and (b) up their talks. They substitute a pedestrian plod through the legislation and some of the case law.
They send the women they can identify as gender-critical, “Sorry, we’re fully booked” emails which require them to attend remotely. Then at least their provoking questions can be ignored.
They change the event details on their website to say, “This event is for solicitors who practise in this area”.
We note, to our considerable glee, that one of us who did not identify herself as such got a place after that requirement was brought in. She works for Citizens Advice, no doubt a near-guarantee of innocence and purity in the eyes of the folk at Garden Court Chambers.
But she is neither innocent nor pure. She is one of us.
What a world it is.
Several of the disinvited write stroppy emails, variations on, “Why are you only telling me this now? I’ve made plans and arranged my diary.” GCC fold, and let them in. In other cases, GCC hold firm: sorry, we’re fully booked.
Those of us who have received emails telling us we can’t be accommodated ignore them and turn up anyway. They park the first of us in reception while they work out what to do with her. More arrive, with Maya Forstater bringing up the rear, unmissable with her big hair and bright raspberry-pink coat.
Into all this schemozzle step a couple of friendly chaps from Travers Smith, whose booking has also come unstuck, but for reasons unrelated to witchery. GCC staff would doubtless like to admit them, but can’t do so under our noses without making it obvious that they are choosing to exclude us. So these two innocents get penned up in the waiting room with the witches.
We get bored waiting: “Can you let us in now?” “There’s no room.” “Well unfortunately we’re in touch with someone inside the room who tells us there are at least 10 empty seats.”
Finally they do a theatrical count of witches in the witches' pen and grudgingly let us through.
The chair has started her introductions by now, so we make a dramatic late entrance. We sweep in with Maya at our head (and the two gently bemused chaps from Travers Smith in our midst). Audible gasps. Thunderous looks from the panel. We take our places in the front row.
We listen quietly. We ask polite but unanswerable questions at the end.
We repair to the basement after for drinks and generous nibbles, courtesy of GCC. The atmosphere is convivial. We chat amiably with the speakers. Because if lawyers can’t politely and respectfully debate this issue and disagree without falling out, what hope that anyone else will?
Did we also raise a glass of GCC wine to Allison Bailey? You bet.
Comments
173
8
Slightly surprising that a barristers’ chambers is afraid of open debate. Is it that their arguments don’t stack up ?
89
7
The Witches’ pen!
82
8
Oh how funny! I'm glad to hear everyone survived.
88
12
Oh dear me, there'll be blood on the Garden Court walls after that.
Well done witches.
115
9
Great write up. GCC seemed determined to draw maximum attention to their failures with regard to Allison Bailey and their unwillingness to learn any lessons from that, including the basic requirements of the Equality Act.
54
7
The audacity!
69
10
Good for the witches! What questions did you ask? What answers did you get?
88
9
“Oh fuck oh fuck, omg I need a cup of tea". Hilarious. And scary. A near miss for GCC as they yet again flirted with discrimination on the grounds of belief. Or as most people would say, the binary and important reality of sex.
47
13
Women! Know your place! How dare any of you open your mouths again?!
55
9
Next time, GCC, put team gender critical on the panel. It's the only way to rescue your reputation, and someone might even ask one of us a question we can't answer.
37
10
So funny well done
27
9
I hope there was a safe room set aside for anyone with the GC vapours
26
12
Hilarious read and thank you!
29
11
Oh that is priceless.
Well done the witches 😊
Dusty
35
10
"an approaching army of at least four or five terrifyingly polite, reasonable women. One can understand their fear" 😂
Brilliantly written and point made politely, clearly and with humour. If we can't have a sensible and respectful debate on this subject as legal professionals then there is no hope for the rest of society.
23
6
Taking one for the team….it’s the stuff of legends! 😂
17
10
Simply brilliant. Such a good laugh. 😂🤣😂
16
8
Nicola Braganza and co have obviously learned nothing from Allison Bailey’s case!
14
11
Things that never happened #4835
24
6
Well done those witches. I'd love more detail on the unanswerable questions that were asked and the attempts at responses (and wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that).
20
8
Audible gasps. 🤣
I keep picturing the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs
16
25
I would expect an anti-trans activist to behave at work to trans colleagues in exactly the same way I expect those on opposite sides of sectarian divdes to behave. Keep your beliefs to yourself and treat your colleagues with dignity and respect. You don't have a licence to harrass people just because the fact they exist challenges the premises of the particular conspiracy theory in which you find comfort & social support.
Very much looking forward to the new edition of Robin Moira White's "Practical Guide to Transgender Law". She and Professor Stephen Whittle are excellent on these topics along with a host of other trans lawyers and academic legal experts.
31
8
Excellent? Ha! You mean they tell
You what you want to hear. You’ll want to be vigilant following it in practice.
You may also be waiting some time. They have delayed the updates for years now I believe. I assume because it’s become obvious that their interpretations of the law were not shared by judges and tribunals and they don’t really want to write that the case law is piling up in favour of gender critical people.
17
7
I would expect an anti-trans activist to behave at work to trans colleagues in exactly the same way I expect those on opposite sides of sectarian divdes to behave. Keep your beliefs to yourself and treat your colleagues with dignity and respect.
And definitely don't try to exclude them on the grounds of their protected characteristics, right?
17
22
I don't think any chambers would not want an event plainly aimed at professionals to be derailed by activists with an agenda, so I'm not surprised that the chambers uninvited people whose names it presumably knew because they were the authors of poison pen emails relating to the Alison Bailey court case. I also think it is a massive overreach to suggest that all the panel members and organisers are bigots without (1) giving any example of anything objectionable that they actually said (and in fact apparently confirming they did not say anything untoward, but instead suggesting, without any justification, that they were planning on saying bigoted stuff but then decided not to - highly unlikely given this was a public event) or (2) giving any panelists or the chambers a right of reply. I really don't find this article to be the gotcha that the author thinks it is.
14
9
Anonymous 01 March 24 17:54
Keep your beliefs to yourself.
Ha ha ha ha ha
12
7
Amazing. Chapeau!
(PS - hello, long lost friends.)
31
12
I would expect an anti-trans activist to behave at work to trans colleagues in exactly the same way I expect those on opposite sides of sectarian divdes to behave. Keep your beliefs to yourself and treat your colleagues with dignity and respect. You don't have a licence to harrass people just because the fact they exist challenges the premises of the particular conspiracy theory in which you find comfort & social support. Very much looking forward to the new edition of Robin Moira White's "Practical Guide to Transgender Law". She and Professor Stephen Whittle are excellent on these topics along with a host of other trans lawyers and academic legal experts.
And when can we expect trans activists to keep their beliefs to themselves and treat their gender critical colleagues with dignity and respect? As opposed to promoting endless training sessions about how use of phrases such as "adult human female" and "biological sex" are transphobic dog whistles and harassing people who elect not to share their pronouns in their email signatures? (And that's before we even get on to the subject of people who have been disciplined by HR or even in some cases fired, simply for the thought crime of not believing.)
Anyway, I hope that the next edition of "Transgender Law" will correct all the errors that were in the previous two editions. Lawyers want to read about the actual law, not the Stonewall interpretation of it. Perhaps RMW should spend more time checking the next edition for legal accuracy and less time on Mumsnet interacting directly with "Sarah", the rape survivor who is bringing legal action against a rape crisis organisation for refusing to provide single sex support to women. (A case in which RMW is representing the defendants.)
5
19
Cultural warfare will get no one anywhere so can’t the two sides hold a conference and agree some ground rules?
31
12
Let’s face it, If this had been a gender critical panel hosting an event on transgender case law, it would no doubt have been crashed by transgender activists (who mostly are not transgender anyway) advocating their own brand of cancelling any event they disagree with. It would not have been polite questions… it would have been a groundless but brutal social media shaming campaign (in the guise of some misguided understanding of equality) to cancel anyone hoping to engage in a debate of this issue (a long overdue debate which should have taken place way before any decisions affecting the wider public were introduced on an educational, scientific, welfare, sociological, and even grammatical level).
Here, the party wasn’t really crashed in the same sense. It was attended respectfully by those holding different views - and it sounds like searching questions were asked which the panel could not answer. Nothing wrong with GC attendees being present at these events.
Note that those on the GC camp are frequently labelled using the derogatory term TERF and yet there has been no retaliatiatory labelling of pro trans activists in the same way. That is a simple but I’d say pertinent indicator of the approach taken and respect shown by each side in this debate…
16
8
‘’Anonymous 01 March 24 17:54
I would expect an anti-trans activist to behave at work to trans colleagues in exactly the same way I expect those on opposite sides of sectarian divdes to behave…You don't have a licence to harrass people just because the fact they exist challenges the premises of the particular conspiracy theory in which you find comfort & social support.’’
It’s extraordinary isn’t it. The offenders are a select number of vocal activists who are silencing debate and pushing through their own misguided understanding as ’reality’ - and yet we have individuals like you trying to ‘educate’ everyone else about how to behave when they don’t agree with the other side.
Have a closer look at your own ranks and read the global room - it’s the side you seem to support who are harassing people on the basis you suggest, not the gender critical side, and it’s also your side who are engaging in a theory in which they find comfort.
The world is starting to wake up from its slumber and starting to ask questions despite being silenced by these vocal activists..
The debate has never been about the existence of trans people nor the respect that they deserve. They exist, people have no issue with that, and no issue with equality for trans . The debate controversy and uproar is around the unbalancing of rights of other groups, the methods used by these activists to silent debates, and the exclusive reliance on ‘theories’ over scientific fact, and witch-hunting everyone who does not agree.
7
6
Up until 2019, the WHO classified 'gender identity disorders' as a mental disorder in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The decision to adjust this was made because removing it from the list would reduce the stigmatization while also ensuring that trans can receive necessary health care.
But, why stop there? How about reclassifying other disorders and diseases? Does reclassifying anything remove the underlying reality? Perhaps that's a place to start.
Comments