Maya Forstater Appeal case

[TopCat]

I know a lot of people aren't in the least bit interested in raking over the whole horrendous trans debate - I'm not either - but this is a very good article by Maya Forstater's lawyer showing why today's victory for MF in the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a landmark. It's about the wider principles at play, not about the Gender Wars.

The Forstater Judgment: What Next?

This is a landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are protected characteristic.

www.linkedin.com

You are so transparent. Can’t we get a separate forum and stick bigots like you and Judith B and all the other spittle flecked arseholes in it?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Heartbroken.

I'm sure you are.

Everyone knows it. No insights into anything, never said anything remotely funny. Just a university debating society twat doing a lawyer tribute act.

 

[Athos]

I'm sure you are.

Everyone knows it. No insights into anything, never said anything remotely funny. Just a university debating society twat doing a lawyer tribute act.

Wounded.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Wounded.

Ok you've actually bored me into submission now, you win.

 

[Athos]

 

[Orang Utan]

So, if beliefs are protected characteristics, does that include the belief that Covid is a scam and that mask wearing is pointless and all that other shit?

 

[Athos]

So, if beliefs are protected characteristics, does that include the belief that Covid is a scam and that mask wearing is pointless and all that other shit?

Not all beliefs are protected characteristics, only those that satisfy the five limbs of the test in the Grainger case i.e. genuinely held, not simply an opinion, concern a weighty issue, cogent and serious, and worthy of respect. But, even then, it can be unlawful to express or act upon a belief that is a protected characteristic; not believeing in covid wouldn't make you exempt from the law around wearing a mask.

 

[Athos]

I think the most frustrating part of possibly both judgements is that this description really does not adequately describe what many GC people including Maya believe. Almost all of those actively involved in the GC movement for example do not believe trans people should ever be permitted to use spaces inline with their gender identity up to the point of criminal sanctions and fines for organisations which permit this. It's also a fairly commonly held belief that trans people should not have the right to legally change their gender. Many including Maya believe things such as preferred pronouns are 'Rohypnol' and part of a plot to lower women's coignitive defences and make them vulnerable to abuse. Or that trans healthcare for young people is some kind of paedophile plot, or a trans-humanist plot by rich trans Jews, or a money making big pharma plot or that 'gender ideology' was created by Queer theorists as a front for breaking down barriers such as the age of consent. The idea that the existence of trans people represents some devious secret motive whether that's to erase women and lesbians, a means for predatory men to gain access to women's spaces, some other bizarre plot usually inteneded to facilitate child abuse and sexual violence is actually pretty fundamental to a large area of GC opinion. And the problem with this judgement is that those who hold these beliefs are now inisting they have the right to express them anywhere and any attempt to prevent them is illegal. And given a key GC tactic is to go into spaces where they know they aren't wanted, whether Pride marches, the Anarchist Bookfair or trans conferences, this is likely to result in a string of threats of vexatious legal challenges. Already on mumsnet and twitter GC activists are claiming this should mean no-one is ever challenged at work for GC views, that venues are now legally compelled to host GC events and that all the twitter bannings etc are now illegal. And if this ruling is perceived as widening the threshold for protected belief then why stop at GC views, what about conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, people worried about the Islamification of Britain, could all they demand a meeting space at a local library or community centre and claim discrimination if rejected?

The answer is almost certainly not under the law as it stands but that doesn't mean a lot of damage can't be caused by those who believe they can because equality law is complex and nuanced at the best of times and most organisations will seek to avoid litigation at all costs.

It may not be the court's fault that this has happened, they can really only judge Maya's beliefs on what she said they were and the various tweets she sent whilst employed, but I think it would have been helpful for some of those beliefs to be fully interrogated. She very much doesn't support the human rights of trans people as agreed by the European Court of Human Right's for example, no matter what she claims. It's a bit like brushing off extremist Christian views on the basis that the essence of Christian thought is that Jesus is the son of God and our saviour. There can be a lot more to Chstianity than that. Instead they seem to have completely ignored many of the widely held conclusions of GC thought and portrayed the entire spectrum of views as legitimate on the basis of reducing them to a single principle and the fact they found a trans woman who doesn't mind being called a man and that an academic, working outside of her dicipline, supports many GC views. Similar defences could apply to holocaust denial, 911 conspiracies, climate change denial, Covid denial and all kinds of things and I expect many of those fringes will have greeted this judgement with some glee.

I think it's a bit dodgy to conflate a range of gender critical views - from the osensibly non-hateful to the downright bigotted - and to effectively ascribe all those views to anyone who holds any of them. As far as I'm aware, MF hasn't claimed anything like some of the more extreme things you've listed (though I accept it might be that she's canny enough not to publicise her true beliefs). But, like you say, the court can only go on the available evidence of what her views are. And, frankly, even if her true feelings did extend to much of what you claim e.g. objecting to trans people's access to single sex spaces, a prohibition on legally changing gender etc., it looks from the judgement that it wouldn't have made a lot of difference, since even those things fall far short of the red line for beliefs that aren't worthy or respect in a democratic society e.g. nazism or totalitarianism.

Of course you'll have lunatics tryng to push this as far as they can, both on the trans issue and other issues such as those you mention. But I guess others' freedom to hold and express beliefs we find offensive is the price we pay for the freedon to hold and express our own in a pluralist society. Quite rightly, there's a high bar on what can be legitimately prevented; essentially, you can hold any belief short of nazism or totalitarianism, and/or express any belief short of causing unlawful harrassment. But I suspect many of those rubbing their hands at the thought that this gives them the freedom to abuse others will (quite rightly) ultimately get a rude awakening. And it's a shame that this judgement might cause some issues in the meantime.

But what's the alternative? Surely, notwithstanding you might find it offensive or even hurtful, you can't really think employers should be allowed to sack women for merely believing that trans women are men (even if they don't act on, or voice, that opinion)? And why that'd be a slippery slope? Then what, socialism? Disapproval of the Chinese government? A belief in Islam?

I just hope that we soon get some clear guidelines on how and when expressing this protected belief may amount to unlawful harrassment, to prevent a load of envelope-pushing test cases. In terms of expressing gender critical views in the workplace, I think the bar should be relatively low*; clearly, even relatively trivial individual instances can add up to create a hostile environment for trans people; the law should only protect expressions that are a necessary and proportionale means to achieving a legitimate end e.g. allowing women to say that they won't undress at work in front of trans women as they consider them to be men, but not, say, allowing people to repeatedly, aggressively comment on trans women using toilets where there are private cubicles.

*Compared to stuff outside of, and unconnected to, work, in respect of which I'd have concerns about expanding employers' power over workers by making it more amenable to discipline.

 

[smokedout]

Maya shared the pronouns are Rohypnol piece and is a signatory on the Women's Declaration of Sex Based Rights who recently submitted evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee that called for the elimination of all trans rights and in a very round about way the elimination of the 'practice of transgenderism'.

The Convention calls for the ‘elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which arebased on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5). We consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article because it is based on stereotyped roles for men and women.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/

This phrasing is no accident. The submission was almost certainly written by Shiela Jeffreys who dedicated her recent book to Janice Raymond's Transsexual Emplire which also called for the elimination of transsexuality from society. That gets much closer to the threshold of totalitarian speech. I imagine if someone called for the elimination of Islam or homosexuality from society then that would probably not be protected. And these views are not fringe they are mainstream in gender critical circles as I have explained many times and which is why I'll reply to your post on the legal aspect of this case but then I don't really want to engage further.

I am not lumping all gender critical views together, I am pointing out that there is a range of views which go far beyond believing humans can't change sex and it might have been useful had the courts recognised that and this might have had some impact on how this case has been reported. I I think it would have been useful to interrogate exactly what Maya's beliefs are, or at least to acknowledge there is a range of gender critical opinion and it is rarely just a belief that trans women are men, and that possibly not all of those beliefs would be protected.

Having said that I'm not arguing with the conclusion of the judgement. I didn't expect the tribunal to fail on those grounds and I don't really care that GC beliefs as they were presented by the court - that humans cant change sex - are protected given the types of other beliefs that are. And the Judge clearly attempted to mitigate the possible consequences of this finding, but I think that could have been done better by fully interrogating what gender critical beliefs often encompass - and had that process taken place then a different judgement might have been reached. That might not have been the right judgement, and the Judge might have even ruled the same thing, but I don't think the court gave fair hearing either to what Maya's beliefs actually are - both judgements seemed to agree she supports the human rights of trans people when she clearly doesn't at least not in the sense human rights are usually understood - and neither really looked into the wider beliefs of the gender critical movement and simply defined it in the most simple and benign terms. I think that's a problem because this sleight of hand has been used over and over again by GC people who claim they were banned from social media, criticised, got in trouble at work etc simply for saying human's can't change sex when in reality they quite often said a lot more than that. And it's now been given added impetus by the courts which has led to GC people triumphantly declaring they can say whatever they want to and about trans people in any space they choose and it is illegal to stop them. I don't think that's a great thing, I think it's largely happened because of the way the case has been reported and even a judgment reaching the same conclusion could have done more to attempt to mitigate against that.

 

[BillRiver]

Maya shared the pronouns are Rohypnol piece and is a signatory on the Women's Declaration of Sex Based Rights who recently submitted evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee that called for the elimination of all trans rights and in a very round about way the elimination of the 'practice of transgenderism'.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/

This phrasing is no accident. The submission was almost certainly written by Shiela Jeffreys who dedicated her recent book to Janice Raymond's Transsexual Emplire which also called for the elimination of transsexuality from society. That gets much closer to the threshold of totalitarian speech. I imagine if someone called for the elimination of Islam or homosexuality from society then that would probably not be protected. And these views are not fringe they are mainstream in gender critical circles as I have explained many times and which is why I'll reply to your post on the legal aspect of this case but then I don't really want to engage further.

I am not lumping all gender critical views together, I am pointing out that there is a range of views which go far beyond believing humans can't change sex and it might have been useful had the courts recognised that and this might have had some impact on how this case has been reported. I I think it would have been useful to interrogate exactly what Maya's beliefs are, or at least to acknowledge there is a range of gender critical opinion and it is rarely just a belief that trans women are men, and that possibly not all of those would be protected.

Having said that I'm not arguing with the conclusion of the judgement. I didn't expect the tribunal to fail on those grounds and I don't really care that GC beliefs as they were presented by the court - that humans cant change sex - are protected given the types of other beliefs that are. And the Judge clearly attempted to mitigate the possible consequences of this finding, but I think that could have been done better by fully interrogating what gender critical beliefs often encompass - and had that process taken place then a different judgement might have been reached. That might not have been the right judgement, and the Judge might have even ruled the same thing, but I don't think the court gave fair hearing either to what Maya's beliefs actually are - both judgements seemed to agree she supports the human rights of trans people when she clearly doesn't at least not in the sense human rights are usually understood - and neither really looked into the wider beliefs of the gender critical movement and simply defined it in the most simple and benign terms. I think that's a problem because this sleight of hand has been used over and over again by GC people who claim they were banned from social media, criticised, got in trouble at work etc simply for saying human's can't change sex when in reality they quite often said a lot more than that. And it's now been given added impetus by the courts which has led to GC people triumphantly declaring they can say whatever they want to and about trans people in any space they choose and it is illegal to stop them. I don't think that's a great thing, I think it's largely happened because of the way the case has been reported and even a judgment reaching the same conclusion could have done more to attempt to mitigate against that.

Hear, hear. Thank for laying it out so articulately, that's really useful.

 

[Athos]

Maya shared the pronouns are Rohypnol piece and is a signatory on the Women's Declaration of Sex Based Rights who recently submitted evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee that called for the elimination of all trans rights and in a very round about way the elimination of the 'practice of transgenderism'.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17510/pdf/

This phrasing is no accident. The submission was almost certainly written by Shiela Jeffreys who dedicated her recent book to Janice Raymond's Transsexual Emplire which also called for the elimination of transsexuality from society. That gets much closer to the threshold of totalitarian speech. I imagine if someone called for the elimination of Islam or homosexuality from society then that would probably not be protected. And these views are not fringe they are mainstream in gender critical circles as I have explained many times and which is why I'll reply to your post on the legal aspect of this case but then I don't really want to engage further.

I am not lumping all gender critical views together, I am pointing out that there is a range of views which go far beyond believing humans can't change sex and it might have been useful had the courts recognised that and this might have had some impact on how this case has been reported. I I think it would have been useful to interrogate exactly what Maya's beliefs are, or at least to acknowledge there is a range of gender critical opinion and it is rarely just a belief that trans women are men, and that possibly not all of those would be protected.

Having said that I'm not arguing with the conclusion of the judgement. I didn't expect the tribunal to fail on those grounds and I don't really care that GC beliefs as they were presented by the court - that humans cant change sex - are protected given the types of other beliefs that are. And the Judge clearly attempted to mitigate the possible consequences of this finding, but I think that could have been done better by fully interrogating what gender critical beliefs often encompass - and had that process taken place then a different judgement might have been reached. That might not have been the right judgement, and the Judge might have even ruled the same thing, but I don't think the court gave fair hearing either to what Maya's beliefs actually are - both judgements seemed to agree she supports the human rights of trans people when she clearly doesn't at least not in the sense human rights are usually understood - and neither really looked into the wider beliefs of the gender critical movement and simply defined it in the most simple and benign terms. I think that's a problem because this sleight of hand has been used over and over again by GC people who claim they were banned from social media, criticised, got in trouble at work etc simply for saying human's can't change sex when in reality they quite often said a lot more than that. And it's now been given added impetus by the courts which has led to GC people triumphantly declaring they can say whatever they want to and about trans people in any space they choose and it is illegal to stop them. I don't think that's a great thing, I think it's largely happened because of the way the case has been reported and even a judgment reaching the same conclusion could have done more to attempt to mitigate against that.

I think the rohypnol piece went too far. And I don't agree with the entirety of the Declaration or the submission to the Select Committee (and obviously not Sheila Jeffreys' views), but it's a bit of a stretch to imply that the aim of effectively abolishing gender generally - which is the thrust of those two documents - is really an attack on transgernderism specifically, such that I'm not convinced with the analogy to the elimination of Islam or homosexuality. But I do agree with you that the court should've given more attention to the very wide range of GC views, and look more closely at what she actually believes. Of course the idea that people can't literally change sex ought to be protected, but the court could have made it clearer that that's not a proxy for all GC beliefs. And I accept that it's left a massive grey area that some people who are undoubtedly transphobes will seek to exploit. Of course, that's a bad thing, and whilst it might have been possible to ameliorate it somewhat, ultimately, I think the decision was inevitable, and better than the alternative i.e. restrictions on freedom of conscience, particularly if we can quickly establish the limits of the lawful expression of those beliefs, so as to prevent harrassment.

 

[belboid]

Jeffreys write that "transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights." And Raymond said “All transsexuals rape women's bodies”. I think it’s fair to say their views are clear attacks on transgenderism specifically.

 

[Athos]

Jeffreys write that "transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights." And Raymond said “All transsexuals rape women's bodies”. I think it’s fair to say their views are clear attacks on transgenderism specifically.

I wouldn't defend either of those sentiments. But, as far as I recall, those points weren't made in any document to which MF gave her support.

 

[co-op]

You are so transparent. Can’t we get a separate forum and stick bigots like you and Judith B and all the other spittle flecked arseholes in it?

Why not just ignore the thread? You've never posted anything worth reading about gender or feminism so it'd be no loss to anyone else and you save yourself the grief of reading views you disagree with.

 

[TopCat]

Why not just ignore the thread? You've never posted anything worth reading about gender or feminism so it'd be no loss to anyone else and you save yourself the grief of reading views you disagree with.

The torrent of bile you spew isn’t worth reading and frankly just looks more and more archaic and embarrassing.

 

[co-op]

The torrent of bile you spew isn’t worth reading and frankly just looks more and more archaic and embarrassing.

This is just childish. You sound like some robot Stalinist parroting a party line. It isn't going to hack it in the long run.

 

[smokedout]

in the long run

yeah once all those gender critical zoomers get into positions of power then perhaps society will finally wake up from this trans insanity. Oh lol, they all think you're a bunch of cranks and bigots. Shout louder, I'm sure you'll change their mind's eventually. Maya appearing twice on GB News today will definitely help.

 

[hitmouse]

I think the rohypnol piece went too far. And I don't agree with the entirety of the Declaration or the submission to the Select Committee (and obviously not Sheila Jeffreys' views), but it's a bit of a stretch to imply that the aim of effectively abolishing gender generally - which is the thrust of those two documents - is really an attack on transgernderism specifically, such that I'm not convinced with the analogy to the elimination of Islam or homosexuality.

Just had a look at that document and:

The Declaration argues that including men with a female gender identity in the category women threatens women’s human rights...

In recent decades a confusion has been created as to the meaning of sex and gender. The adoption of sex stereotypes by a person of the sex to which they are not usually attributed has, under the influence of campaigners for ‘transgender rights’, come to be seen as an innate condition which entitles a person to be counted as a member of the opposite sex. This has resulted in the introduction into law of the category ‘gender’ in a way which is profoundly troubling for women’s equality.

If this isn't an attack on transgenderism specifically, then what is? It's not like it spends 10 pages going on about all the ways that gender roles are created and reinforced for cis people and then slips in a reference to trans people in passing, the entire document is about trans people.

 

[smokedout]

Just had a look at that document and:

If this isn't an attack on transgenderism specifically, then what is? It's not like it spends 10 pages going on about all the ways that gender roles are created and reinforced for cis people and then slips in a reference to trans people in passing, the entire document is about trans people.

Quite, this isn't about eliminating 'transgenderism' by destroying gender so it no longer becomes necessary or desirable (itself a pretty huge assumption about what the end of gender may elicit). It's about eliminating transgenderism in the here and now, by as Janice Raymond put it, dismantling the social and legal structures which support it - such as trans healthcare, legal gender recognition, trans access to single sex spaces, protections for trans people at work etc - all the things the gender critical movement is attacking.

 

[Athos]

Just had a look at that document and:

If this isn't an attack on transgenderism specifically, then what is? It's not like it spends 10 pages going on about all the ways that gender roles are created and reinforced for cis people and then slips in a reference to trans people in passing, the entire document is about trans people.

Yes, I possibly phrased it wrongly. It probably could be reasonably said to amount to an attack on 'transgenderism' (if that's such a thing). But an attack on an ideology isn't the same as an attack on transgender people. Though I get the point that it's a fine line when people rights are questioned - and I certainly don't support any roll-back of trans rights - but I guess their argument is that the alternative is an attack on women's rights. So, whilst I don't agree with all of the declaration, I don't think MF being a signatory should put all her gender critical beliefs beyond the pale in the eyes of the law, as per the original - subsequently overruled - decision.

 

[Dystopiary]

This is just childish. You sound like some robot Stalinist parroting a party line. It isn't going to hack it in the long run.

You literally start threads about one topic, in a very biased fashion, a topic that's really sensitive and on which other threads already exist. People's lives are affected by this stuff.

 

[Dystopiary]

And honestly time and again I've seen anti-trans people cut cis men loads of slack in between hassling trans people and spreading disinformation about them.
Funny that. Not funny at all really.
It's not just about feminism; it's something more.

 

[BillRiver]

And honestly time and again I've seen anti-trans people cut cis men loads of slack in between hassling trans people and spreading disinformation about them.
Funny that. Not funny at all really.
It's not just about feminism; it's something more.

I'd go further than you and say that, with very very few exceptions, it's not about feminism at all.

 

[co-op]

You literally start threads about one topic, in a very biased fashion, a topic that's really sensitive and on which other threads already exist. People's lives are affected by this stuff.

There aren't other threads - there's been some "agreement" not to discuss the issue - which has always been one objective of gender identity theorists - to stop discussion. I don't agree with that, I think people have the right to discuss it, regardless (pretty much) of what they think. Yes I'm "biased", so are you.

Yes, I'm, aware people's lives are affected by this stuff, I'm nearly 60 years old and this patronising approach doesn't really cut it with me although knock yourself out if it makes you feel good. It's not just trans people who are affected by this issue, it's just about everyone and fanatical pandering to the loudest shoutiest most aggressive voices on the TRA side is not "being nice", or "sensitive". There is a debate going on about this topic, if you close it down on U75, all that happens is it goes on without you. I think the left might want to keep a handle on it. There are many more people on here and the left in general who are worried about this topic than are showing themselves.

 

[co-op]

I'd go further than you and say that, with very very few exceptions, it's not about feminism at all.

As the thread stands, it's basically a massive majority of men posting about mtf trans, pretty much zero about ftm. And women who don't agree with gender identity theory now discuss this topic on U75 via private forums - you might want to have a think about whether that's a great victory for feminism.

 

[smmudge]

There aren't other threads - there's been some "agreement" not to discuss the issue - which has always been one objective of gender identity theorists - to stop discussion. I don't agree with that, I think people have the right to discuss it, regardless (pretty much) of what they think. Yes I'm "biased", so are you.

What does this mean to you "gender identity theory"?? Pretty sure there's many theories, and all the gender identity theorists I know (academics) like to do nothing but discuss it. They write books about it, articles, collaborate with others, hold lectures and seminars. If they tried to stop discussion they'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

 

[BillRiver]

As the thread stands, it's basically a massive majority of men posting about mtf trans, pretty much zero about ftm. And women who don't agree with gender identity theory now discuss this topic on U75 via private forums - you might want to have a think about whether that's a great victory for feminism.

Are you imagining that I am a man now?

Btw this is a thread about Maya Forstater's appeal.

 

[hitmouse]

As the thread stands, it's basically a massive majority of men posting about mtf trans, pretty much zero about ftm. And women who don't agree with gender identity theory now discuss this topic on U75 via private forums - you might want to have a think about whether that's a great victory for feminism.

Bizarre line of argument, if there were more posts about ftm trans people what exactly do you imagine that would show? But nice to see you admitting that your first post in this thread was a barefaced lie.

 

[Knotted]

As the thread stands, it's basically a massive majority of men posting about mtf trans, pretty much zero about ftm. And women who don't agree with gender identity theory now discuss this topic on U75 via private forums - you might want to have a think about whether that's a great victory for feminism.

I thought we had quite a good discussion on the legal ins and outs of the case as it relates to matters of the limits of free speech in the work place. I thought it was a fair idea for a thread and actually turned out to be quite enlightening regarding equalities law. Sorry if there wasn't enough gender identity theory (whatever that is exactly) for you to jump on.

 

[belboid]

As the thread stands, it's basically a massive majority of men posting about mtf trans, pretty much zero about ftm. And women who don't agree with gender identity theory now discuss this topic on U75 via private forums - you might want to have a think about whether that's a great victory for feminism.

Oh fuck right off. You n your small group of mostly male posters made the environment here so vile you drive women, cis and trans, away. You think that’s a great victory for feminism?

I suspect it this kind of dishonesty that means women are much more likely to reject your arguments than men, and much more likely to support strengthening trans rights.