Maya Forstater is entitled to her views, but anti-transgender beliefs don’t belong in the workplace

'Transgender people do change their sex – it is discriminatory to say otherwise' by Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir (Owl)

I thought no-one was saying people actually changed sex any more?

This person doesn't seem to understand what a legal fiction is.

Knock me down with a feather. Suspected that might be the answer.

They do publish some non-binary/transmen females, but I thought to actually get gazumped would require a male.

she had often been gazumped on stories by wholly unqualified trans people

Just for the record - how many of them were male?

That piece is a steaming pile of horseshit, it's actually embarrassing that it was printed in a national newspaper.
Embarrassing, but sadly not surprising...

It must be very frustrating for actual journalists.

That is so badly written. How does such tosh get into newspapers?

Crossword sedition?

The Metro as with The Independent, has form for publishing some shockingly fact free propaganda by transactivists in recent years.

No wonder The Metro crossword compiler had Adult Human Female in the crossword. What a load of garbage.

Metro opinion piece
5th May 2021
'Transgender people do change their sex – it is discriminatory to say otherwise'
by Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir (Owl)

(extract)
"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) saw reason to intervene. In my view it is bizarre that they found it important to speak up for someone who clearly holds hostile views towards a vulnerable minority. (continues)

The whole foundation of being ‘gender critical’ is to be vehemently against the right of trans people to participate equally in society as their gender, whether that is socially or legally. The ideology centres first and foremost on the exclusion of trans people and renunciation of everything they are.

This is all based on falsehoods about alleged safety risks in gendered spaces such as prisons, shelters and sport, and fear-mongering dog-whistles where individual trans people who did something bad are used as an example to generalise for all trans people.

This is dressed up with ‘concerns’ about women’s ‘safety’, despite there being no real evidence that trans inclusion increases risk and violence in gendered spaces — and the fact that trans women in particular are disproportionately affected by gender-based violence.

There are plenty of countries around the world, such as Iceland, which have progressive laws about trans inclusion in gendered spaces such as shelters, prisons, sports and other areas of life. This has been hugely successful and positive for everyone.
At the heart of ‘gender critical’ views is the repeated claim that ‘sex cannot be changed’ – which certainly isn’t being stated as a neutral or objective observation or fact by them. It is said to be deliberately offensive and disrespectful to trans people. But it’s also just false.
Transgender people in the UK can indeed change their sex, both legally and physically. (continues)

It therefore seems like a big stretch that the EHRC would intervene and try to position these ‘beliefs’ as simply ‘controversial’ or ‘offensive’ instead of extreme. They are extreme. There is absolutely no nuance or room for understanding with them.

These beliefs are so extreme that they denounce a person’s inner sense of self, something they are in their very core. This belief is so extreme that it continues to marginalise and exclude trans people from society and public life. It’s so extreme that it refuses to acknowledge physical and legal facts. It strips people of their humanity and disregards everything they are. It continues to fuel discrimination and stigma towards a vulnerable group in society. It’s cruel and dehumanising.

If Maya Forstater’s appeal is successful, I fear that it will invigorate anti-trans and transphobic sentiments across the UK. In a society where hate crimes against trans people are on the rise, and discrimination in the workplace is a serious problem for trans people, it would have devastating consequences."
metro.co.uk/2021/05/05/trans-people-change-their-sex-believing-otherwise-is-discriminatory-14518761/

There will be devastating consequences if women are protected against being sacked for recognising that sex matters, discussing Safeguarding, women's rights and proposed changes to the law?

current thread OP PronounssheRa wrote,
"Transgender campaigners have too much say over expanding hate crime laws, says top judge

Articles in the telegraph and the mail today.

A former top judge has claimed transgender groups are having too much say over hate crime laws that could cause freedom of speech to 'suffer'.

Charles Wide, a retired Old Bailey judge, has said only an 'limited range' of views was being sought out to advise on a possible expansion of legislation.

He singled out LGBT campaigners Stonewall, saying the Commission was treating them more like 'a consultant than consultee'."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9539545/Transgender-groups-say-hate-crime-laws-former-Old-Bailey-judge-says.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4235549-Transgender-campaigners-have-too-much-say-over-expanding-hate-crime-laws-says-top-judge

Anyone know what this whole "anti-" is about?

In the US anti-racist is now a big thing, too. It seems that it is used against people who are not actively against your ideology but also not actively for it. In the case of this article, they know they will get a libel case if they accuse her of 'transphobia', but "anti-transgender" can be backed up if argued in a certain way, so no libel there.

The sense of nuance and the contextual relevance seems to be absent from so many perspectives that are unsympathetic to Maya F.

On the 'uncomfortable thread' - there are some reports about GPs refusing contraception to young women who were probably Gillick Competent or for whom contraception was legal. Some GPs refused, citing their own faith and followed it up with the advice to 'go home and play with dollies'.

It's entirely permissible for those GPs to have a faith that doesn't accept non-marital sex. I'd consider that it's appropriate for those GPs to put aside this manifestation of their own beliefs and not allow it to sway an assessment of Gillick competence. I can think of no circumstances under which a GP who is offering family planning service should refuse legal contraception in the absence of any doubts as to competence and consent for vulnerable groups of people.

There are clear lines between beliefs and manifestation. There are times when manifestation of a belief is relevant and times when it isn't. This is why we have professional frameworks, standards of practice etc.

if working with a transwoman she “wants to refer to that woman as “he”, regardless of the pain that would cause”. This is not supported by the evidence.

And is beside the point anyway, as Joshua Rosenberg said in his article. Should people be required to enact and speak beliefs they do not hold, regardless of their own beliefs? What about the pain this causes them? The facts of someone's sex may be indeed a painful thing to them. How does that extend to requiring law to compel others to use language they believe is untrue to protect someone from hearing facts they find upsetting?

Other people have rights too. As for this whole 'you can have the GC belief in your head but you should not express it at work' thing....? That is considered acceptable to say to people with GC beliefs. Now turn it around and imagine expressing the same thing to a trans person about you can have your gender based beliefs but not express them at work? Shocked? Of course you are. And rightfully so. Now think about how unequal those standards have become.

children or vulnerable women are enabled to speak clearly and without inhibition about their own experiences and perceptions requires acceptance that others should extend the same tolerance that they expect in return.

Lesbian & Gay News
May 2nd 2021
'fact-checking-forstater-dealing-with-the-eight-maya-myths-by-lgn-legal-commentator-dennis-kavanagh'
(extract)
"It’s said that in war, truth is the first casualty. In the bitter debate surrounding Maya Forstater’s recent Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing (the background of which is summarised here) that old adage seems to obtain. If you knew of this case only what you read in some sections of the media you might form the view that Forstater is fighting for the right to harass, discriminate and make a hostile environment of any workplace rather than simply claim she has a right to freedom of belief. Such inaccuracies as are now commonplace are not subject to the normal corrective power of free speech with many human rights and women’s organisations noticeable by their absence in the coverage. In a week that saw a woman in an appellate court arguing that she had a right to a belief as to what a woman is, Woman’s Hour on the BBC ran a segment about sharing bathwater. All media organisations and legal professionals have an important public duty to accurately and clearly report the law of the land. Public confidence in the rule of law depends upon it and so it is now imperative that a number of misleading myths are fact-checked and put to bed.

Myth #1 – Forstater believes you have the right be being rude at work
It has been written of Forstater that if working with a transwoman she “wants to refer to that woman as “he”, regardless of the pain that would cause”. This is not supported by the evidence. Even the original tribunal (which ruled against Forstater) accepted that she would “In most social and professional settings use a person’s preferred pronouns and avoid drawing attention to their sex if this makes them uncomfortable: her reservation of the right to do otherwise is in circumstances where it is relevant to do so – e.g. where these very issues are being legitimately debated, or in sports or healthcare contexts, or where single sex provision and/or bodily privacy are concerned, or in order to ensure that children or vulnerable women are enabled to speak clearly and without inhibition about their own experiences and perceptions” (Appellant’s skeleton argument)." (continues)
lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/05

*bolded quote refers to Independent opinion piece by White & Mulready in OP

Maya is going to go down in history as a Heroine! Never used to understand how or why Suffragettes put themselves on the line for our vote - now I get it. Check out this brilliant interview!

Twitter comment by Robin Moira White (one of the authors of the opinion piece in OP)

Robin sounds a bit miffed. As pp said, there are nine protected characteristics, not one. What if it was gender identity ideology which was the belief that people thought shouldn't be expressed?

Maya Forstater joins WHRC to report on last week's CRUCIAL legal appeal in UK - added to today's panel

Reminder to anyone who's registered - it's 15:00 today (Saturday). Still time to register.

www.womensdeclaration.com/en/whrc-live/

It could be described as oxymoronic.

I agree Tinsel.

"assert her femininity"

"Assert" is an interesting choice of word. One would expect "express" to be more commonly used in this context.

This is a very odd comment for a barrister who works on employment discrimination cases (and therefore must advise about Equality Law) to make. It feels like there is a high level of personal investment here.

There are some indications of this in the OP Independent opinion piece and in previous Twitter responses to women:

twitter.com/moira_robin/status/1363223163232993286

There is no hierarchy of rights. Nobody’s protected characteristic can be elevated over another.

There was no vulnerable minority represented at Maya’s workplace who could have been subjected to harassment on account of her beliefs, were she minded to do that, which she has been very clear that she is not.

Anyway, I thought Robin thought all this was very, very complicated and we’re all just too thick to get it?