Internal links should replace this page with a new window containing the relevant pdf document in an integrated pdf flip-book plugin. Use the ‘Back’ option or the main menu to return to this page. External links will open in a new window or tab.
Written representations
During the tribunal process, I submitted several documents that I considered to be ‘written representations’—information I believed was relevant to and would support my case. These included: an additional submission relating to the ‘Grainger criteria’ (i and ii), to supplement what I had stated about my gender-critical beliefs in my witness statement (which were being challenged by Mr Bruce Frew, counsel for the Respondent); a statement regarding the issue of a ‘Comparator’; information regarding the individual cases of Rachel Meade (11 January 2024) and Joanna Phoenix (22 January 2024), which were concluded prior to my case being heard; and my ‘written representations’ outlining my concerns related to the bias evident in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB).
I would like to point out that in December 2011, I was hospitalised for two weeks after suffering a stroke. As a result of this, I have great difficulty in dealing with stressful of unfamiliar situations as well as I used to (which was not very well at the best of times). I become anxious and start to stutter or stumble over my words and thoughts. Consequently, contemplating the idea of standing up in court to address an employment tribunal (and with no legal expertise), I decided to put all my arguments in writing. This ad hoc method helped me to control my anxiety to some degree, but it is obviously not the ideal way to do things in court proceedings. I hope this sufficiently explains why I frequently refer to case law within my main witness statement—as a litigant in person, I didn’t feel I would be able to stand up in court and present my argument coherently, using case law.
Equal Treatment Bench Book
While conducting my research into case law, I repeatedly saw references to the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB), which is published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary with the aim of increasing ‘awareness and understanding of the different circumstances of people appearing in courts and tribunals’.
Kathleen Stock (Material Girls) and Helen Joyce (Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality) both refer to the ETBB in unflattering terms. Joyce reports on the case of Maria MacLachan, who was assaulted at Speaker’s Corner in London while waiting to attend a discussion on changes to the UK’s Gender Recognition Act,:
“Under the influence of the Equal Treatment Bench Book the judge ordered [Maria MacLachan] to refer to her transwoman assailant [Tara Flik Wood] as ‘she’ while giving evidence. Though the defendant was found guilty, the judge reprimanded MacLachan and denied her financial compensation because she kept forgetting to use female pronouns for the obviously male person who had punched her in the face.”
Joyce, Helen, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, (Updated paperback edition, Oneworld, London, 2022), 269
I decided I needed to read the ETBB, from beginning to end. The February 2021 edition (April 2023 revisions) pdf, extends to 571 pages, but the main chapters relevant to me were: (6) Gender and (12) Trans People.
What I discovered, as Kathleen Stock had identified in the 2018 edition, was the heavy reliance on the policies and documents of Stonewall, along with (in the edition I read) repeated references to WPATH, who at the time I read it had just been exposed in the WPATH files investigation. I knew I had to let my concerns be known, even if it would appear provocative to do so, and I wrote what I referred to as a ‘written representation’ and submitted it to the ET on 2 April 2024. The pdf version submitted is available here.
Grainger (i and ii)
In my witness statement, I included (as part of my Appendix 1) information supporting the veracity of my gender-critical beliefs. I later realised that while the success of Maya Forstater’s EAT case cemented Grainger iii, iv, and v, since they concerned the ‘belief’ itself, it did not mean that Grainger i and ii would necessarily apply to every individual gender-critical claimant. The pdf version of my ‘written representation’ on Grainger i and ii is available here.
Hypothetical Comparator
In my initial claim, I had noted that no sanctions were imposed upon any of my colleagues who had begun using traditional pronouns: ‘he/him/his’ and ‘she/her/hers to self-identify’ and that to sanction me for self-identifying in a manner of my own choosing was discriminatory. In its Grounds of Resistance, the Respondent stated: ‘the Claimant has not identified an appropriate comparator for direct discrimination purposes’. I gave this careful consideration and on 8 January 2024, I submitted my considered written representation in respect of a hypothetical comparator, here.
Rachel Meade
My ‘written representation’ concerning the Rachel Meade case is available here.
Joanna Phoenix
My ‘written representation’ concerning the Joanna Phoenix case is available here.