Using your words
An interesting item from the Allison Bailey tribunal.
It’s that “most people would think ‘with force'” bit that pisses me off the most. No we wouldn’t: coercion is not a synonym for force. I wouldn’t use “coercion” for cops wrestling a perp to the ground, or for rape, or for other forms of physical violence. I use that word when it’s not a matter of physical force but of the other kinds of pushing – official kinds, verbal kinds, social media kinds, in-group kinds, messages on shirts kinds, organizational kinds, emotional kinds. Shaming people is coercive, ostracizing people is coercive, calling people terfs and radfems and transphobes is coercive. Complaining about “the cotton ceiling” is coercive.
As if lawyers don’t know this. Come on.
In the current mania about ‘consent,’ the question of coercion, social pressure, conformity, and thinly veiled threat is constantly evaded. Women are ‘consenting’ to the niqab, forced marriage, date-rape minus force, etc. etc. all the damn’ time.
I don’t know the players without a scorecard.
AB is Allison Bailey
BC is Bailey’s lawyer
AH is the employer’s lawyer
IO is Stonewall’s lawyer
Who’s testifying (MW)?
Who is CM (Miss McGahey)?
Who is MS, who wrote a report on something?
Apparently Kirrin Medcalf (KM), of “I need my support dog” fame, is no longer testifying. KM is Stonewall’s “head of trans inclusion.” I can’t tell from KM’s photo whether KM is a man pretending to be a woman, or the other way around.
Following some of these tribunals where women defending women’s rights and single sex spaces, etc., it’s amazing how many times the answer to the uestion “Did you open the links to information which she forwared to you?” is “No.” Often the people being asked this are involved in the internal investigations of allegedly “transphobic” beliefs or activities on the part of the woman being investigated and disciplined. None of them are interested in looking at arguments or information critical of gender ideology, even in instances where due diligence would seem to require it. They don’t need to see any evidence. They’ve already made up their minds that the women are guilty of “transphobia,” even though they themselves have no idea what the actual beliefs of the women under scrutiny are, and couldn’t define “gender”, “trans”, or “transphobia” if their lives depended on it. They were quick enough to jump onto the Stonewall bandwagon, but now that the wheels have come off, and they’ve discovered that it has stranded them the fantasy land of what Stonewall imagines the law to be instead of what the law actually is, they are left spluttering excuses under oath, unable to justify their actions. All that high-priced help and advice has left them needlessly vulnerable to lawsuits and litigation.
Perhaps it will finally dawn on them, now that they’re on the witness stand struggling to defend the indefensible, that they were conned into paying good money to be used as tools. Without realizing it, they had become co-conspirators in Stonewall’s secret, backroom attempts to do an end-run around the law, through its concerted efforts to make its favoured (and incorrect) interpretation the basis of regulation and compliance within government and private sector institutions and organizations. This was the point of the “Diversity Champions” scheme. They organizations buying into it believed they were getting some sort of seal of approval by meeting a set of standards and guidelines, when what they were actually doing was paying for the privilege of being agents for Stonewall. They were in effect paying to be mercenaries. Once they were signed up to the scheme, it switched gears and became a protection racket. Stonewall’s “guidance” and “expertise” regarding the law was less than worthless. That’s pretty good trick to pull on a bunch of lawyers.
It’s called “women’s agency,” John.
/sarcasm