Well it's all happening at the moment!

I'm eagerly awaiting the opportunity to watch Maya Forstater's appeal which is NEXT WEEK! If Maya's case is decided in her favour - if it's determined that her gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic - this will be very important for my case, as it was my gender critical beliefs that led me to speak up and to be expelled.

On the issue of the rights of children with gender dysphoria or who are gender non-conforming, there's been some very important news recently. 

Keira Bell's case against the Tavistock was heard at the High Court and, as the Times put it, it was a victory for common sense. Children cannot consent to treatments that will potentially curtail their adult fertility and sexual function. I'm really happy to hear this and, despite a similar case being brought in which it was found that parents can consent, this has brought a halt to new prescriptions of puberty blockers. 

And most importantly, a NICE review found that the standard of evidence for both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is inadequate. What this means is that hopefully no more children and young people in the UK will be put on an irreversible medical pathway which isn't going to improve their outcomes, because of an ideology that says they are "born in the wrong body". I'm really hopeful that young people with gender dysphoria will now be able to be pointed towards treatment that will actually improve their mental distress, rather than the medicalised affirmation pathway that has been shown not to improve outcomes.

But there's also going to be a very important change for me - my solicitor, Peter Daly, is moving to a new firm and I'm moving with him. I'm going to be opening a new Crowd Justice page shortly for this move, but before that, I can see that I am so nearly half way to my stretch target. One final push for that would be great, and watch this space!

... to say that they object to my statement on this page that my daughter is prevented from attending Rainbows because of my expulsion.  The reason she is prevented is because many Rainbows events require parents helping to run meetings.  

Girls who are more dependent on their parents (as my daughter is) find it hard to participate without their parents having the option to attend for any part of a meeting or an event.  The terms of my expulsion are that I am prevented from doing so, even as a parent.  My daughter therefore cannot attend because, were she to do so, I could not be present.  She would inevitably be asked why her mummy cannot be there and why her mummy has to leave as soon as a meeting starts, when the other mummies do not.  

She is six years old.  She cannot be expected to explain the reason for my expulsion, and it would expose her to the risk of harm if she had to try to explain to her friends why I have been expelled.  This situation is particularly acute during lockdown, when meetings are taking place over video call, which requires a parent to participate for a young girl to realistically take any part.  I cannot be present, and therefore she cannot attend.

I wanted to update you on a hearing in my case that took place on Tuesday (21 July). Girlguiding had applied for it to deal with various things.

Firstly, they wanted to overturn the “stay” (a delay) of the hearing that the Judge had ordered because Maya Forstater’s case overlaps with mine and is being dealt with by a higher court. We asked for a stay of my case until Maya’s is dealt with, because otherwise we would have had two courts deciding a very similar issue at the same time, which would have caused confusion. The Court had previously agreed with us, and ordered the stay without needing a hearing. Girlguiding wanted this overturned so asked for a hearing for this to be considered.

Secondly, they wanted to overturn the permission I had been granted to amend my claim. When I put my claim form in, before I had any lawyers, I had mistakenly referred to one aspect of my claim as being direct discrimination, rather than (the correct) indirect discrimination. Clearly better that I DO have lawyers!

This was only on the form itself – in the pleadings itself (the description of the case, which my lawyers helped prepare) we made it clear it was indirect discrimination. Girlguiding have not had any obvious problem with this, and have lodged a defence to my indirect indiscrimination claim. We had therefore applied to correct the mistake on the claim form to substitute “indirect” for “direct”, which the Court had agreed on the papers, without a hearing. But Girlguiding wanted this overturned too, so needed a hearing for this to be considered.

Thirdly, Girlguiding wanted at this hearing to arrange for another hearing to be listed, to separately determine whether my belief in Gender Critical Feminism is Protected under the Equality Act 2020.

There were also some case management issues – which “track” to assign the case to (so, small claims, county court etc.). Each track has slightly different rules. My case is a bit unusual. I’m not claiming for much in the way of damages – Injury to Feelings awards, the way that discrimination damages are measured, are arranged in bands. I am seeking an award in the lowest band, of £5,000. But it is a legally complex case, because the belief that I am relying on has not been determined before. The question of which track to apply could have been dealt with on the papers, but as we were having a hearing, it was dealt with at the hearing.

The long and the short of it is that we got everything we wanted. The stay was allowed, so was the amendment, and there won’t be a separate hearing to discuss my beliefs separately from the facts of my expulsion from Girlguiding. All in all, a good day in court (obviously video court!). Huge thanks to my barrister Adam Ohringer for his work.

One of things that stood out for me was the way that Girlguiding is dealing with the case. I was represented on Monday by my barrister. To keep costs down, and because the matters were straightforward, my solicitor decided it wasn’t necessary for him to attend, so it was just Adam. Given how the hearing went, that decision was definitely the right one.

But facing my barrister, on behalf of Girlguiding on the other side were:

1. One QC (“silk”)
2. One non-QC barrister (but a pretty senior one – 29 years experience as a barrister and, I am told, extremely well-respected in her field)
3. Three more (!) lawyers or paralegals of one form or another from Girlguiding’s solicitors.

Before hearings like this,  both sides have to send in a costs schedule – basically a spreadsheet which sets out the costs the lawyers are charging their clients, so that the successful party can have their costs paid by the losing party at the end of the hearing. Ours came to just over £6,000. The Court ordered Girlguiding to pay most of this - £4,800 - back to us to be used later in the case (I am told that the Court only rarely orders the full amount of costs to be paid – it’s part of the policy of dissuading people from going to court where it can be avoided and so easing the pressure on the Courts system).

In comparison to our costs of £6,000, Girlguiding’s cost schedule showed that they had incurred costs for preparing and attending the hearing of nearly £33,000! Added to the amount they have to pay back for my costs, this means that the three hour hearing on Tuesday cost Girlguiding over £40,000, for which they got – well, nothing really.

But that’s not all. Girlguiding’s lawyers also submitted costs schedules for the work they have done on various other bits of the case up to now. This shows that they already spent £45,057.56 (not including the £4,800 they now need to repay to me) just on various procedural applications and the short hearing on Tuesday. As well as paying for drafting their defence, they may have spent nearly £100,000 so far, and we’ve not even really started yet.

If I lose – and I might, this is complicated law, and nothing is certain – I could be liable for their costs. Not for the £33,000 they would have claimed for Tuesday’s hearing if they’d won – that’s gone now, thankfully, because they got nothing they were asking for. But if they carry on like this, it’s likely that costs will continue to rack up on their side as the case progresses.

The pressure of taking on such a big organisation by myself is quite daunting, so I am incredibly grateful for all the support that I have received. Thank you all, it means the world.

But we’re not done yet, and I haven’t yet achieved the level of funding which means I will definitely be able to see this through.

But for now, everything is on ice pending the outcome of Maya’s appeal. Crossing everything for her Appeal Tribunal!

Katie

Well, there's been a lot of interesting things going on recently!

- First, the government leaked that it was considering scrapping plans for "self-ID" - in other words, someone cannot say they are "the other sex" and legally become the other sex; legal sex changes remain a matter for scrutiny and evidence of commitment over a period of time. If Girlguiding wants to take just "legal" women, this would mean they could only take men who have legally "changed sex" by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate - and no boys.

- This doesn't directly impact on my case because my case is mainly on the basis that I was expelled and victimised for my philosophical beliefs, and that I and other women who do not believe in an inherent gender identity cannot become Guide leaders, as this is a condition of being a Guide leader (you must be a woman who identifies as a woman). But it's not great news for them. 

- Then, just this weekend, the barrister Allison Bailey set up her CrowdJustice campaign to fund her case against her chambers and Stonewall, who she claims victimised her because of her gender critical beliefs. Sound familiar? Allison's crowdfunding page was taken down by CrowdJustice but has now been restored and she's met her stretch target of £60,000! Hurrah! But once we reach our targets on CrowdJustice we are supposed to be able to still raise money. It's hard to see why this is and it's particularly hard to see why the case had so many complaints when compared to mine and Maya Forstater's except... well... Allison's case is very high profile but she is also Black and a lesbian. Just pointing that out.

- One positive impact of this is that I can see how committed everyone is to the protection of gender critical beliefs. I have had at least £3000 in donations over the last 24 hours! I still have a way to go. I do need to wait for any major action until Maya's case is heard but it is possible my case may go to appeal and to a higher court - and that's going to be expensive.

- I'd also like to share with you how my daughter is doing. My son is in Scouting and he's been able to do a number of interesting badge activities during lockdown, and keeps looking at his badge book to tick off what he might get. Not so my daughter - she would be the right age for Rainbows, and her friends have been doing badges, having Zoom meetings and at-home sleepovers. She can't do this because her membership has been prevented by my expulsion. Now more than ever Guiding and Scouting are relying on parent participation - if you are the parent of a Guide or a potential Guide - any girl under 14 - let them know what you think of their policy.

- As well, of course, as donating to my case and sharing far and wide!

I've been waiting... and waiting... and waiting to be able to give you all an update. I can finally tell you something but it's still not a finished story!

Maya Forstater, who has been appealing her dismissal on grounds of her gender critical beliefs, lost her case against her employers but has now lodged an appeal! (See Update 10).

You probably don't know the ins and outs but the Employment Tribunal is not what's called a "binding precedent" - another court can independently come to a different decision. So, though this decision is indicative, it's not binding over the court my case would be held in.

After Maya lost her case, Girlguiding told us that since my belief case is so similar to hers, we should withdraw my case. We declined to do so; because Maya is appealing her appeal will be held in a higher court than my case. This means that if Maya's appeal is successful, it is binding to the court that my case would be held in.

Confused? I am as well but Maya's appeal is really hopeful both for her obviously, but also for my case.

This is going to be a long haul, though. Maya's appeal is some way off and we can't make any firm plans for my case till after that. My fund is not looking too healthy also, and we need all the help we can get. Please share, Tweet, anything you can think of.

I have also asked again if Girlguiding will allow me to accompany my daughter to meetings, outings and sleepovers, and they have again not made any concession. This is massively disappointing to me and to my daughter, and is obviously extremely hard to explain to her and to her friends and their parents.