James Kirkup (Spectator) makes some important wider points in the conclusion of the article above:
(extract)
"I should say here that I’ve met Forstater once and discussed her case in broad terms. I don’t claim to know everything about it and I note that CGD has said it cannot discuss staffing matters, but says that all staff ‘are expected to uphold our respectful workplace policy’. So I am not, to be clear for the benefit of the legally-minded, stating as fact that her claims against her former employer are justified.
Reaching such a conclusion is the job of an employment tribunal, and I very much hope Maya Forstater assembles the funds required to put this case to law. Because it really is about a lot more than her and her circumstances, important as they are. It’s about how free people are to express views and state facts which may well be offensive to some people, but which do not remotely justify the loss of livelihood and status. It’s about our ability to disagree with a person without seeking their personal ruin. It’s about accommodating reasonable differences of perspective in private and public debate instead of scouring all contrary views from the public square.
Even if you don’t give a fig about Maya Forstater and the trans issue, I hope you’ll bung her a few quid to ensure her case is properly heard and explored. Because this time, it’s women scared of losing jobs for saying things – respectfully and lawfully – that a few committed and organised men don’t like. But if someone like Maya Forstater can lose her living for saying that someone born male cannot become female, who knows who the targets will be next time?"