Maya Forstater

You know what, every time I see something like this, where people are being ridiculously unwilling to debate or have a reasoned, evidenced discussion, I will be inspired to do something very practical and useful. Like sign a petition, like donate to people fighting for women and girls (I'm not saying to what or whom, for the record, it's a general statement, MN don't make me walk on eggshells more than I am already here).

I'm a middle aged mum with mountains of shitwork and responsibilities and I don't have time for woke nonsense. I want my daughter protected with proper safeguarding and I am incensed and outraged that this nonsense threatens her rights to safety, privacy and dignity.

So every time I listen to people who are so so ready to throw my daughters safety, privacy and dignity away and have so little knowledge of the real issues, I will do something practical.

I am seriously tempted to cancel my BBC license, demand a refund and donate the money to something pro-women and girls rights.

Thank you Maya.

As for the Green woman !! Is there a factory somewhere that churns these people out. You can almost see the check list in her head

It seemed a scripted response to anything which was interpreted as being a 'trans rights issue'.
No doubt some who are trans allies will say nothing more than she did.

BBC complaint submitted:

When watching the section of Politics Live which covered Maya Forstater's employment tribunal case I was surprised that the high level of support that her crowd justice fund has received (raising £60,000 in two days) was not mentioned. The public support for her case is clearly one of the key points about it.

I was also surprised when the panel moved on from discussing the case itself (should a person lose their job for stating unpopular opinions in a measured and respectful way), to discussion of the actual opinions Ms Forstater had given.

All opinion polls on the subject have shown that the general public are not at all in favour of gender self ID. This is a controversial subject. Therefore if it is going to be discussed, a balance of views should be represented, instead of Ms Forstater being subject to a litany of criticism with no opportunity to reply, as happened here.

The BBC are incredibly divorced from the views of the general public on gender self ID. It is increasingly apparent just how out of touch as an organisation they are.

In summary, please could you answer the following questions:

1. why was no mention made of the crowd justice campaign?
2. do you feel (as I do), that BBC guidelines on impartiality were broken by allowing discussion of the substance of Ms Forstater's tweets without a balance of opinions being represented, and without any opportunity for Ms Forstater to reply?

Kind Regards
Bernard

Jo Coburn and Panel underlined why your case is so necessary

Exactly. Stay strong Maya. You were excellent. It's not your fault that the panel chose to sing Kumbaya instead of actually discussing the issue. With you all the way

Harry the Owl has a great tweet on there.

Maya tweet and the replies:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1126114184939352064

Maya sounds deflated by her experience of BBC Politics Live.

She tweets: The most nuanced conversation I had on #politicslive was with the taxi driver on the way there. Politicians and the BBC must catch up with the public who understand there are different vulnerable groups, and want reasoned public debate about policy, not repetition of slogans

Maya, I am angry on your behalf and that the Panel were so intent on promoting another agenda and missing your points.

You came across as impeccably reasonable and someone interested in the evidence and facts rather than made up stories.

Jo Coburn and Panel underlined why your case is so necessary and I'm sorry if you are being put through the wringer for standing up for me and mine and every female.

Yes, Harwood did say that Maya shouldn't have lost her job. He then tweeted the same sentiment, but in my view blew it by adding that she shouldn't have lost it for "a bad opinion. "

How are you defining bad Harwood? What "bad" opinion could/should she have lost it for? Free speech isn't a sliding scale. Who will be the arbiters of "bad" ? We all know it'll be people like the Green woman, who are the last people who should ever be in charge of a decision like that.

As a pp said, Harwood seems pretty sure of himself. I am equally sure that if he was chatted up in a bar, and came to realise the woman he was talking to was a trans woman he would not be interested. I've yet to see a heterosexual male confirm that they would date a trans woman in the way that they would date a biological female.

I also don't believe that most men, if they wanted a biologically male person to carry out an intimate medical procedure, would accept a trans man for that purpose. If they wanted a male counsellor they would also want one born male and socialised along the same gender norms as them.

As for the Green woman !! Is there a factory somewhere that churns these people out. You can almost see the check list in her head. What do I say when it looks like a person, especially a woman, is not being "kind" about trans people ? ".... most persecuted people.... hate.... human rights ...... denial..... we must accept..... transphobic." Idiot

Oh and where are all these acts of persecution against trans people, these acts of literal violence ? I read and watch lots of news outlets, nothing so far. I see a lot of young men being stabbed to death, lots of people blown up for religious beliefs. Trans violence, where is it?

To be fair to Harwood, in amid all the ill-informed and offensive ranting, he was at least the only one on the panel that did say Forstater certainly should not have lost her position over this.

(Boy did I have to grit my teeth to grind that out!)

Actually I’m going to stop using ‘woke’, it’s far too fluffy. I’m going to call it what is: bigotry, sexism, misogyny.

YY.

Harwood has no idea what he is talking about.

A protected characteristic is useless if it can’t be defined, and that includes the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Was it him who said that castration (what castration?) is actually quite a feministic thing? I can't bear to watch it again.

OH my god - these people are supposed to know what they are talking about.....be aware of the issues; understand them. They have not got a clue. Just chatting shit. The standard of intelligence and informed opinion is now sorely lacking in so many MP's.

Do not go on national TV and present yourself as an expert if you have not got a clue what you are talking about.

"Btw self-ID is good"??????????
You're up for mansplainer of the year, Tom.

Tom Harwood is, as Floral correctly observed, an oily little plonker, apparently given to opining on things he knows zip about

Tom Harwood is really very sure he's right.

twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1126120928872673286

The word "exclusionary" is typically used dishonestly in this debate. The word "discriminate" is another one.

Because it's often used in phrases like "racial discrimination" people tend to assume that discriminating is an intrinsically bad thing. However it just means to differentiate. We differentiate between groups or objects for a multitude of inoffensive reasons all the time.

And YY, exclusion and discrimination are not necessarily bad, as long as the criteria you are discriminating and excluding on are sound

I personally feel strongly that any old dufus or hooray Henry should not walk into top universities. I think we should be discriminating on the basis of academic ability

Opinion polls on self ID clearly show that the general public do not believe TWAW

this is a subject of intense public debate. The conversation should not have moved to the panel’s views on what Maya was saying without a balance of opinions

And I’m so bloody sick of the BBC being so detached from the views of it’s licence payers on this subject. They’re supposed to be impartial FFS

Is it really 'exclusionary' to say that no, men can't be women?

It is, but that's a good thing. Whenever we define anything it excludes things that are not that thing. So the definition of cats excludes horses, and so on.

The definition of woman excludes man. And so it should. It's a function of the definition.

Not to mention I find it extremely offensive and exclusionary when we're supposed to pretend that 'including' men in women's spaces doesn't immediately exclude a large group of women, many from protected groups.

And that this pretence involves homophobia, racism, disablism, sexism, misogynism, and discrimination on grounds of religion, culture and belief. I find that really offensive and actually exclusionary.

That sentence baffles me too.

Is it really 'exclusionary' to say that no, men can't be women?

But then there's stuff being released from Edinburgh Uni as posted on the other thread that even women talking about current law is wrong and mustn't be allowed, because women mustn't have anything or talk about anything that isn't fully inclusive of the men that wish to be a part of them.

And mentioning any downsides involved for the women in this illusion is Burn The Witch time. No matter how much you hedge it around with how 'sensitive' it is, and how 'difficult' it is to say no to men.

Looking at the Conservative Woman article again and that email to Maya:

"You stated that a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality. A lot of people would find that offensive and exclusionary."

Isn't that extraordinary? The idea that a simple, unarguable statement of fact can be "offensive and exclusionary"? Do you imagine he wrote that with a straight face?