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

The Independent is a disgraceful rag pretending to be news. And thats hardly surprising considering who owns it:

Russian oligarch and former KGB Officer Alexander Lebedev bought the paper in 2010.[7] In 2017, a Saudi Arabian investor bought a 30% stake in it.

Reals bastions of women's rights there HAHAHAHA.

This assumption, as exemplified by disgusted upthread is just so revealing: that gender critical women are somehow uniquely needful of extra constraint, over and above any other person holding any other set of views.

The strategies to attempt to leverage women's silence are revealing also whether with regards women's right to abortion or as in the White and Mulready opinion piece in OP,

It would also, which perhaps may even concern Forstater, apply not only to beliefs that harm transgender people, but to any controversial belief a person may hold – including, for example, a belief that women are intellectually inferior to men. If Ms Forstater succeeds before the court, a man at work will have the protection of the law to make those statements at work whenever he likes, causing whatever damage he likes to the women he works with.

Which might be characterised as "Look what you'll make him do"

This assumption, as exemplified by disgusted upthread is just so revealing: that gender critical women are somehow uniquely needful of extra constraint, over and above any other person holding any other set of views.

Here’s what’s happening: It’s not the views. It’s that it is women holding them. There’s an undercurrent of mistrust, that without the steadying hand of a man’s permission, we’re poised to unleash malice. It’s not about rights and freedoms, it must be personal antipathy.

Balls.

I've been trying to think of a comparable situation using a protected characteristic but am struggling.

There was a recent case of an actress sacked from the cast of The Colour Purple because she posted homophobic content on Facebook. It's a rather odd case, though, and not really like Maya's.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55885720

I've been trying to think of a comparable situation using a protected characteristic but am struggling.

The analogy was provided by Maya's QC: that someone's religious beliefs informed their rejection of same sex marriage.

2013 "Archbishop of Canterbury: gay marriage bill will undermine family life
Speaking in House of Lords debate, Justin Welby says law will undermine marriage as basis for rearing children"
www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/03/archbishop-canterbury-gay-marriage-bill

This is exactly what TRAs are attempting to do - the only allowable view is TWAW and anyone not sharing that view can be hounded out of their job, harassed and silenced. They’re the new Puritans. In a free society the law can require that we treat each other with respect. It cannot cannot compel belief, it’s the lifeblood of a free democratic society.

Shouldn't this stuff be sub judice?

Isn't one of the points that Maya held her GC views private in the workplace - it was her Twitter account that got reported to her employer?
And that this has been conflated to suggest she harassed trans people in her workplace?

I've been trying to think of a comparable situation using a protected characteristic but am struggling.

But for trans ideology that’s not enough - it’s offensive and unbearable to have to work with someone who doesn’t agree with you, even if they behave respectfully. It’s bizarre.

It goes even further than that they want to forbid anyone so much as thinking differently to their doctrine, it's truly Orwellian.

Why doesn't someone compile the comments here and send them to the editor?

I'm happy to provide my deleted comments if anybody does this but I'm too busy with Trans Widows' Voices submission to the WESC to take the task on myself.

It is noticeably that this comment piece, is not open to comments. This is another trend that newspapers are doing, ie placing comment pieces next door to an actual news story as though trying to say what someone feels about something trumps actual facts.

Now where have we heard that tactic before.

Some people wish only to broadcast their erroneous claims and false allegations whilst using a range of strategies to try to silence dissenters (especially uppity women) and/or prevent others from hearing critique and analysis. Apparently believing that what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Why doesn't someone compile the comments here and send them to the editor?
A good idea.

Yes it’s interesting that “not being harassed” isn’t seen as a reasonable compromise. I would never harass, bully or torment someone for their views, even if I found them abhorrent. That’s how adults in a workplace co-exist - we accept there are a wide range of views.

But for trans ideology that’s not enough - it’s offensive and unbearable to have to work with someone who doesn’t agree with you, even if they behave respectfully. It’s bizarre.

stumblein I do know what you mean but discussing the issue here (and not just this one, other feminist issues too) helps me a lot, it helps me to work through my thoughts and interrogate them logically.

Plus I think as mumsnet is a public forum and known to be a next of evil GC vipers, anyone who wants to understand the GC viewpoint can come here and discuss it or read threads. That is extremely useful I think given the one-sidedness of most media.

And also I think many of us are writing to the papers, challenging “gender” categorisation, making feminist points in everyday life.

Its always useful when confronted with obvious false allegations to remember that in context of narcissistic abuse/ coercive control behaviours these may often be projections.

Darlene Lancer
'How to Confront Narcissists' Lethal Weapon: Projection
Find out how to identify and confront projection and stop abuse'
(extract)
"Understanding how projective identification works is crucial for self-protection. Recognizing the defense can be a valuable tool, for it’s a window into the unconscious mind of an abuser. We can actually experience what he or she is feeling and thinking. Armed with this knowledge, if someone shames us, we realize that he or she is projecting and reacting to his or her own shame. It can give us empathy, which is helpful, provided we have good self-esteem and empathy for ourselves! Building self-esteem by disarming our inner critic is our first defense against projection.

Still, you may feel baffled about what to do. When someone projects onto you, simply set a boundary. This gives the projection back to the speaker. You’re establishing a force field–an invisible wall. Say something like:

“I don’t see it that way.”
“I disagree.”
“I don’t take responsibility for that.”
“That’s your opinion.”
article continues after advertisement

It’s important not to argue or defend yourself, because that gives credence to the projector’s false reality. If the abuser persists, you can say, “We simply disagree,” and leave the conversation. The projector will have to stew in his or her own negative feelings."
www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/toxic-relationships/201903/how-confront-narcissists-lethal-weapon-projection

Disgusted is contradictory, being nasty not the right side of harassment.

Talking about Top Women in Finance awards being given to men is not nasty.

Discussing a government consultation on gender recognition is not nasty.

If you have convinced yourself that a woman talking about these things in normal everyday human terms is nasty then you have become the prejudiced person yourself.

though I actually still hope it gets thrown aout as what it is, a request by a person to be nasty to others.

I'm amazed that people think this of Maya. She's said numerous times that she would use preferred pronouns out of politeness. She is an incredibly civil woman.

What she is contesting is that she lost her job because of her very commonplace and almost universally shared, beliefs.

This person has only to stay the right side of harassment now in the workplace.

That applies to everyone, including those who believe in gender ideology.

though I actually still hope it gets thrown aout as what it is, a request by a person to be nasty to others.

No, it isn't. It is a request by a person to have a perfectly reasonable and factual belief protected and not to be discriminated against for holding it.

This person has only to stay the right side of harassment now in the workplace.

Exactly tho.

And women who have had an abortion or are pro choice, will of course encounter a number of anti abortionists. I have myself. It's completely normal to encounter people who don't share your politics, beliefs, standards, ethics, etc.

As you point out, people tend to 'stay the right side of harassment'.

All very normal.

This person has only to stay the right side of harassment now in the workplace.

This is the standard now and always will be. That's all anyone has to do.

The made up rubbish about precedent for pro lifers is nonsense.

Adults deal with the fact that not everyone thinks the same way do, or likes the things you think are true or important. Anyone with an ounce of self-reflection knows that they themselves feel this way about other people at times.

A woman has an abortion ( the woman's right to choose is immutable in my book ) but it bbecomes known at work by a collegue who is pro life. This person has only to stay the right side of harassment now in the workplace.
As opposed to what?

One of the concerns in the evidence MF's QC gave was that some religions believed that biological sex was immutable also to support her rights. The same religions believe the same about homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, abortion, women's rights, birth control.

It is a lot of what ifs but lets try one on for size. A woman has an abortion ( the woman's right to choose is immutable in my book ) but it bbecomes known at work by a collegue who is pro life. This person has only to stay the right side of harassment now in the workplace.

For the small number of trans women in the workplace who will encounter the even smaller number of gender critical women, there is a larger number of pro lifers , backed by Heritage Foundation money and AFD deper pockets now who will quote the precedent if MF wins. Enjoy what will be a shallow victory though I actually still hope it gets thrown aout as what it is, a request by a person to be nasty to others.

I was going to suggest making comments on the Independent's facebook page, but it looks like quite a few people are picking this stupid article apart.

www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/posts/10159361166056636

Its admirable that anyone has bothered to read it and take it seriously enough to respond to it.

But in fact it is just one of the many articles of a type that news outlets that have reported on the Maya Forstater - where they have had to report what was said - have all commissioned to show how horrible it is that Maya is doing this.

We all now the arguements about this.

What needs to be done is telling newspapers or web based news outlets that they aren't pulling the wool over our eyes.

Endlessly telling ourselves what we already know but not attempting to challenge the source of these falsehoods quite honestly serves little purpose.

It is noticeably that this comment piece, is not open to comments. This is another trend that newspapers are doing, ie placing comment pieces next door to an actual news story as though trying to say what someone feels about something trumps actual facts.

Now where have we heard that tactic before.

Why doesn't someone compile the comments here and send them to the editor?

Seriously, at this rate we will all be going to our graves having perfected our arguements with people who agree with us anyway, but never put them to the people are arguements are actually with.

Nowadays the Independent's comment pieces (and, sadly, news reports) amount to nothing much more than advertorials for whichever movement they're getting behind this week. The lack of analysis and critical thinking is startling.