A man's a man for a'that

Am I bringing my profession into disrepute for calling a man, a man? TLDR: I don't think so.

Sophie Weddell is a man who says he is a woman and goes by the name of ‘Sophie Sparkles’ or ‘Sophie Molly’. He’s quite active on social media and how he manifests his womanhood includes posting pictures of himself with clothes pegs on his nipples, a ball gag in his mouth, his head tilted back in apparent sexual pleasure.

I find this portrayal of womanhood offensive and repulsive. But guess what? I have to put on my big girl pants and deal with it. Sophie is allowed to be offensive and repulsive. I don’t think this should be a crime. I can always look away. He isn’t emailing me the pictures directly or standing outside my house at 4am screaming at me to come and look.

Sophie finds some behaviour of mine offensive, in particular the manifestation of my protected belief that sex is real, it matters and it is immutable. But he adopts a rather less pragmatic approach and makes direct complaints to my regulator about me.

The offensive manifestation of my protected belief were the following words on the social media platform X in 2024 when I commented on Sophie’s topless photo

‘this man is not a woman. I am allowed to say this’

Sophie described this as ‘unprovoked transphobic hate’ which was ‘abhorrent’ directed at a ‘vulnerable transgender woman’ and had bought him to tears. I must face disciplinary action for my abuse of power.

My regulator the Bar Standards Board responded to him in June 2024 - perfectly sensibly, lawfully and properly - to tell Sophie that I had a right to express views about sex and gender. I did not use profane or abusive language or threaten him. I simply said, as I will repeat in this piece and beyond, that Sophie is a man. He is male. When his mum’s egg meet his dad’s sperm at the moment of his conception, his sex was determined and can never change.

I appreciate he seems unhappy about this and wishes to present as a woman. Whatever floats his boat. But he cannot coerce me or anyone else into believing or saying that he is a woman. Provided I am not refusing him employment, goods or services because of my position, or following him about in real life shrieking ‘you are a MAN!’ - which would be unlawful harassment - my belief and the manifestation of that belief, that you cannot change sex, is political speech which is given the highest form of protection of all, pursuant to article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not only did Sophie complain but he requested his complaint be kept secret from me, fearing undefined repercussions. Happily, I did find out because Sophie complained in public when his complaint was rejected.

He posted the full letter from the BSB on 3rd July 2024

Sophie Molly 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ on X: "This is disgusting from @barstandards. There is no such thing as 'gender-critical philosophical beliefs', it's just transphobic abuse. I will be requesting a review at my earliest convenience.

I contacted my regulator after being alerted to his post, to say that I hoped I would be kept fully informed of the review process, given that Sophie was no longer quite so shy about his complaint.

I was kept informed.

The reviewer was keen to repeat that he/she was making no recommendations as to whether disciplinary action was required, but determined that the Bar Standards Board had potentially acted unlawfully in dismissing Sophie’s complaint, citing cases where the manifestation of ‘gender critical’ views had been found to go too far, such as the case of Kevin Lister who did not accept the gender identity of one of his students.

I found this a very odd, if not legally illiterate conclusion which appeared to ignore all the relevant issues of context. Guidance about this in the context of the employer/employee relationship was recently approved in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School helpfully summarised here https://www.cloisters.com/insights/manifestation-of-belief-higgs-v-farmors-school

I find it both astonishing and troubling that a complaint directed against my freedom of speech is still undecided, 7 months after its first rejection. Happily for me I have now been complained about so often and so risibly that it no longer stirs in me any emotion other than weary exasperation. But not everyone has my resilience. Such complaints are undoubtedly weaponised and need to be dealt with promptly.

It is clear that I am not Sophie’s teacher. We do not have a relationship of any kind. He is not a trembling adolescent. He’s a grown man who courts the limelight.

I will await my fate. If I am found to have breached the Bar Code of Conduct and brought the profession into disrepute, I will be punished for it. The ripple and chilling effect of that punishment will travel far beyond my personal embarrassment.

And regardless, I will continue to call trans identifying men, men when I think it appropriate or necessary to do so. Because that is what they are. I will of course behave with proper decorum towards clients and colleagues. I will of course continue to act for all clients to the best of my abilities, regardless of their gender identity. If anyone is going to suggest I wouldn’t, then that is a very serious accusation and they will need to prove it.

But I have a fundamental right to my belief and a right to manifest this belief. If it is not possible to take this position and practice as a barrister then there will need to be a public tribunal hearing where these issues are properly aired.

I will leave to the Bar Standards Board the issue of whether my calling Sophie a man is in fact a breach of my Code of Conduct and in fact brings the profession into disrepute. I think all of this will raise many interesting questions for a disciplinary tribunal - not least, the issue of whether it is ‘disreputable’ for having views which are shared by more and more people as time passes.

At a recent meeting of the Westminster Legal Forum where we discussed equality, diversity and inclusion [EDI] in the law, the Director General of the BSB denied that ‘EDI’ carried any ‘ideological freight’ and asserted there was not only a legal but a moral duty to make sure that barristers were subject to a duty to promote it.

The frozen response of the BSB to Sophie’s complaint underscores my fear that the Director General is dangerously wrong. There is clearly significant ideological freight attached to a policy of equality, diversity and inclusion which acts to protect and include only one kind of belief - Sophie’s ideological position that he is a woman must be included, while my protected characteristic, the belief in the immutability of sex, is excluded. He is allowed to sing from the roof tops about what a womanly woman is he. I am to be silenced with threats to my reputation and my livelihood.

I don’t think this is right. And I trust my judgment.

I’ll keep you posted.