Maya lost - can it be true?

If Maya's beliefs are 'absolutist' then I'm an absolutist, too.

It seemed to hone in on the idea that Maya thinking sex and biology are material reality was a newly discovered belief.

Yes this really jarred. She claimed she's had the belief her whole life pretty much and this wasn't credibly disputed afaicr?

So our beliefs are protected so long as they aren't the kind of beliefs anyone might object to.

Useful law then

Not a peep about the distress males inserting themselves into women's spaces causes women. Not a single, fucking peep.

I noticed "slight" and there are a couple of other typos too.

I've read the judgement. It's absolutely fucking batshit.

If you ever had any doubt that this is a war on women, then Judge Tayler's judgement makes it absolutely crystal clear.

James Kirkup and Janice Turner are going to have a field day on this.

It's shitty & stressful for Maya, & thank you Maya for your courage .

Elsewhere...well it's more sunlight. It's patently batshit. I hope it's widely reported, I really do.

I've tried reading the judgement. The last sentence of para 78 will need explaining to me as it seems incomprehensible?

But basically she lost because a recognised belief can't be incompatible with dignity.

There's a lot in there that doesn't seen to correspond with what happened at the trial (via the tweets, so perhaps I missed something?)

Isn't Katie Alcock's case making the same argument as Maya?

Maya, this is appalling. I'm just gobsmacked. Reading (skimming) the judgement and I can't believe it. So much utter twaddle.

I'm so sorry.

Slight of fucking hand?

Surely sleight? Or does Maya have very small hands...

Because it's sleight of hand so I'm now concerned about literacy in the judiciary as well as insanity.

Yes - it is a typo in the document because it irritated me.

^However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is
incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others^

This is absolutely shocking. It’s unbelievable

Um...is that a quote? Because it's sleight of hand so I'm now concerned about literacy in the judiciary as well as insanity.

that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It
provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated
convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and
thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they
have transitioned

That simply isn't true. A woman transitioning can't claim a male title.

Jesus Fucking Christ. This is an absolute travesty. I've skimmed the judgment - it's absolute bollocks.

Let's pray for an appeal to someone with an iota of sense.

Just reading through the analysis from 74 onwards.

There is a fair amount of nuance and I'd definitely need guidance from a legal person to be sure that I understand it.

Except 'gender affected' (women's) sports.
And those pesky hereditary titles

Last statement of ruling:

It is also a slight of hand to suggest that the Claimant merely does not hold the belief that transwomen are women. She positively believes that they are men and will say so whenever she wishes. Put either as a belief or lack of belief, the view held by the Claimant fails the Grainger criteria and so she does not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.A slight of hand?

People who have penises, and we are not permitted to say they are men? How dare we say so whenever we wish?

We should be shut down and not allowed to say people with penises are men whenever we wish?

Slight of hand?

In a parallel world I'd be sending the judge the jam-packed folder of 'transwomen' on the internet with their various fetish shots of thighs, boots, penises in knickers and fishtights.

Slight of fucking hand?

Thank you Maya.
We are most definitely not done here.

OMG bloody lunacy

That was recognised in the Gender Recognition Act which states that the change of sex applies for “all purposes”.

Except 'gender affected' (women's) sports. They are specifically excluded. So I wonder what other areas of the law this judge was unfamiliar with.

I really hope the papers puck this up and tear it to shreds.

The Equality Act says that a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.

Important aspects of human life and behaviour like say, the continuation of the species via SEXUAL reproduction?

As I feared - saying her horrible bigoted beliefs are not compatible with dignity and therefore don’t qualify.

Definitely needs an appeal if she can bear it as I’m not convinced by the cogency of the judgement in all places.

That's insane. Literally. You're not allowed to believe the truth?

Batshit.