Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Gaby Hinsliff article in Guardian on Maya Forstater case

121 replies

merrymouse · 22/12/2019 08:19

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/22/maya-forstater-case-about-protected-beliefs-not-trans-rights

Gaby Hinsliff writes:

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

How would one do that if one can't talk about sex? What language would one use?

How do you talk about the need for sex segregated sports if you can't talk about the sex?

The law currently gives specific examples of situations where it would be legal to exclude all trans women (e.g. from a counselling service for women who have been raped ), and the reason is their biological sex.

I can only conclude that nether Gaby Hinsliff nor the judge are familiar with UK legislation and that both are reading 'Stonelaw' - specifically the bit that pretends that sex based exemptions don't exist.

OP posts:
Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:42

She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.

The law doesn't give them that right.

It's a badly drafted law that doesn't make much sense, but Maya Forstater didn't draft the law.

OP posts:
Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:39

It’s going to get silly.

Because 'X always means Y without exception except for Z' is a silly proposition.

OP posts:
FFSFFSFFS · 23/12/2019 10:38

I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that sex is biological and immutable. For her it is more that an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. Even though she has come to this belief recently she is fixed in it, and appears to be becoming more so. She is not prepared to
consider the possibility that her belief may not be correct

Jesus wept. It is what everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD believes. When that happens - it is known as a FACT.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/12/2019 10:37

Those who've consistently lied will be given even more side eye than we've already been giving them here too.

LangCleg · 23/12/2019 10:35

Anyone supporting judicial activism replacing democracy is, well, an anti-democrat. Jus' sayin'.

Once this seeps into public understanding, there is no power on earth - even Owen Idiot Jones - that will get Britons to vote it into power.

Fieldofgreycorn · 23/12/2019 10:35

From the other thread:
“However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is
incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.”

To deny someone a legal right would not be following the law.

BarbaraStrozzi · 23/12/2019 10:35

I'm getting fed up with this continual repetition of an outright lie.

MF explicitly said she would do her best to use chosen pronouns for individual people out of courtesy.

She reserved the right to talk about actual biological sex in general terms in the context of political discussions.

Which is absolutely vital if we are to be able to discuss questions like housing male bodied sex offenders in the female estate, whether women can request female HCPs for intimate examinations (the elective sort, scheduled well in advance, when generally the majority of practitioners in these areas are female, so it shouldn't cause a resourcing problem), women's sport.

I am assuming no-one on this thread, whichever side of the debate they are on, would wish to impose legal restrictions on language use so draconian that it would make having such discussions impossible. (Or indeed believes that there are already legal restrictions which mean having such discussions is already illegal - I'm assumin PC Gul is not a MN-er).

LangCleg · 23/12/2019 10:34

No it doesn’t say that. It says for all purposes. With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

And those exceptions that are "proportionate and legitimate" rest on... what? Could it be.... sex?

The judge misrepresented the law and Maya's argument.

Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:32

I think the judge’s point would be that being a vegan is an absolutist position. Whereas sex/ gender isn’t such a simple black and white issue.

Being a vegan is famously not a black and white issue because it's often difficult to define exactly what an animal product is.

However, sex is black and white apart from the tiny number of people who have a disorder of sexual development that makes their sex genuinely unclear. However, the term 'trans' does not in any way imply that an individual has a DSD.

I don't know why it is ever necessary to categorise anyone by gender. Perhaps you could explain.

OP posts:
Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:24

It's not even as though all the instances in the act where biological sex overrides legal sex are particularly proportionate or legitimate.

A trans man cannot inherit a peerage that passes down the male line, so in most instances would be excluded from being one of the 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, just like anybody else whose biological sex is female.

There are no provisions to check whether the trans man would have the necessary 'masculine' qualities to join the House of Lords on a 'case by case' basis.

OP posts:
OldCrone · 23/12/2019 10:22

MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law - like we all have to.

Where did she say that? If you're going to chuck accusations about like that, you need to be able to back them up with more evidence than 'someone on twitter said it, so it must be true'.

Fieldofgreycorn · 23/12/2019 10:19

I think the judge’s point would be that being a vegan is an absolutist position. Whereas sex/ gender isn’t such a simple black and white issue.

OldCrone · 23/12/2019 10:18

With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

Where the entire class of transwomen would be excluded. Not, as the judge said, 'certain trans women'. The exemptions allow for treating transwomen as a class differently from women as a class.

And there is no definition of what is proportionate and legitimate, leaving it to each service provider to make their own decision about what is least likely to leave them open to legal action.

Fieldofgreycorn · 23/12/2019 10:17

Then you’re not a vegan.

It’s going to get silly.

Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:13

Tomorrow I am going to become a vegan for all purposes.

Except for bacon sandwiches.

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 23/12/2019 10:13

MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law

No, she didn't.

Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:09

It says for all purposes. With some exceptions.

Do you really think that makes sense?

OP posts:
Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 10:08

The judgement made it clear that its fine to discuss the GRA self ID consultation but we can do so respectfully.

It seems relevant that MF is accused of misgendering individuals who would would not currently be eligible for a GRC per the GRA 2004.

I'd really like to understand what the word 'woman' is supposed to mean if I am required to accept that somebody who identifies as a woman on a part-time basis is a woman.

OP posts:
Fieldofgreycorn · 23/12/2019 09:59

No it doesn’t say that. It says for all purposes. With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/12/2019 09:59

It's not what the law says. There are many things wrong with that law but it was at least not written so stupidly as to mean "you can exclude the nasty ones", as that would be a nightmare to try to enforce. Which leads me to wonder if this judge is a bit thick or if he's just hoping the public is.

Original poster
merrymouse · 23/12/2019 09:58

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case.

But that very much isn't the law. The GRA lists situations where ALL trans women or men can or should be excluded, even with a GRC, and the reason is their biological sex.

OP posts:
OldCrone · 23/12/2019 09:56

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows.

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case.

But that's not what the law says, is it? The law currently allows such services to exclude all transwomen as a class. In other words the law actually says that transwomen are not women.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 23/12/2019 09:51

I've been reading the reviews of the Cats film (spoilers - they're not good) and therefore am now picturing "astonished!" delivered with a facial expression full of exaggerated furry wonder.

Fieldofgreycorn · 23/12/2019 09:45

quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows.

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case. MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law - like we all have to. She made a direct challenge to the GRA.

Were you really expecting a different response from this? I’m astonished. Gaby has got it right. This is the starting point for civilised discussion. The judgement made it clear that its fine to discuss the GRA self ID consultation but we can do so respectfully. Isn’t that the same spirit as MN Talk guidelines?

LangCleg · 23/12/2019 09:42

Because this is scientifically and factually accurate. It’s not a belief. It’s an understanding of fact. It’s like saying “Maya Forstater understands the Earth is not flat”.

Yes. And it wasn't her argument. Her argument was that her belief was that this understanding of fact matters in the organising of society and creation of public policy.