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

Interesting commentary from Jane Clare Jones in response to Ash Shakar's misunderstandings (related to article):

JCJ: [Tayler - the EJ in the original tribunal hearing] made a judgement based on a manifestation of a belief that didn't happen, not on the belief.

Leya: But also manifesting the belief at work is protected so long as it is relevant. There is a difference, as we all know, between expressing your belief & saying things you know to be distressing to someone in the workplace just for the sake of it. This is really important as TRAs are now trying to pivot by saying well she can express what she wants outside of work but not in work, as though she should still have to self censor & be compelled to make out she believes things she doesn’t. Contact matters & I hope the judgement deals with this area clearly.

JCJ: Yes, it was important that distinction was made, it's less where it happens are much more whether it is in the context of some necessary conversation or expressing a belief or purposefully harassing someone. The TRAs want to claim the the belief itself constitutes harassment, that can't fly, beliefs can't be harassment in and of themselves. I thought the QC used a good example there.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1387141233097773060

I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies in this article.

Let's start at the beginning with the framing of knowledge that sex matters is, "anti-transgender".

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

1. The relevant philosophical belief was identified by the Claimant at §67 of her

The Law

1. Section 10, EA 2010 provides that:

"Karon Monaghan QC's submissions on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Intervenor in the Appeal.

The EHRC submitted

1. Maya's philosophical belief is that sex is a material reality not to be conflated with gender identity and that sex matters.

1. Employment Tribunal Judge Tayler should have concluded that Maya's philosophical belief (that Sex Matters) falls under the protection of the Equality Act 2010

1. Employment Tribunal judge Tayler confused consideration of whether Maya's belief could be an Equality Act protected characteristic with how she might have expressed her beliefs. This was a mistake and the wrong approach.

1. EHRC stressed the importance of the following point.

It is not the State's role to monitor belief.

The Tribunal should not have embarked on an inquiry as to the value of Maya's belief. Value judgments (whether in beliefs about God or sex) are not the function of the ET.

5. EHRC submitted that the law treats sex as biological and binary and gender identity as social.

Many will think Maya's belief controversial and wrong. Nevertheless her belief is entitled to be protected"
twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1387148818270064647

This again - this fundamentally false claim that wanting to be able to “believe in” (I.e. accept) and live by reality is “anti-trans” or somehow to do with wanting to hurt people’s feelings and discriminate against them for the sake of it.

I have always known that sex exists in humans, is functionally binary, is important in some situations and cannot be literally changed. It never for a second occurred to me to even think about trans issues much at all let alone in a negative way, until some trans activists started demanding that I literally believe a man is a woman, that all you have to do make it so is to say so, and that I can’t have my own reality-based opinions on the matter on pain of being sacked. That behaviour is discriminatory and attacking - believing sex exists isn’t.

I don’t feel unable to cope with the fact that some people have different beliefs from me or feel attacked by it. Because some trans people and their allies do, they’re attempting to make society have only one belief, one that’s counter to a biological reality we all actually have to live by.

If we can’t stand up against that then we’re basically heading for a totalitarian, thought-policing, faith-based state. Not wanting that is nothing to do with hating trans people. Lots of trans people agree with what I say here themselves. Even the ones who are trying to push this idiocy, I don’t hate, I don’t mind them identifying as trans, I think they should have the same protections as anyone else.

But no other group is protected from having to listen to people talking about reality because it hurts their feelings.

How very interesting

I would like to manifest my beliefs around this, but will settle for just holding them this morning

Thank you, Maya, for your courage. I wish you the best and hope you win.

I think there was a bit too much "let's talk about the author as a Mumsnet user", rather than responding to the actual piece in question.

Cathartic, I know, but probably best to actually address the published article and any specific things in there that need to be called out, for the benefit of readers.

Gosh this is starting to look like a Swiss cheese. I guess someone doesn't like the feedback here...

It is fascinating to see how they have to misrepresent the facts of the case before they can start mustering their arguments against it. Obviously they don't have a leg to stand on, or they wouldn't be making shit up. Of course the tactic worked when they wanted to smear and discredit JK Rowling, and the way she was treated did a good job of scaring less financially secure women into silence. Doubt it'll work on a judge though, we'll just have to see how their "case" stands up tomorrow.

Re the OP article by Robin White and Molly Mulready:

Sarah Philimore (Family lawyer) tweet comment,

"Once again we have the singularly depressing sight of a barrister willing to misrepresent the truth in pursuit of an ideology.

Let’s examine the Maughmology of this piece.

"Forstater wants to refer to that woman as “he”, regardless of the pain that would cause."

False. MF was clear she would use pronouns of choice in the workplace, out of courtesy.

"Forstater claims the right to knowingly cause pain, and not be required to respect the true identity of a trans woman."

Nonsense. MF claims the right not to be compelled to believe what she doesn't think is true. How is 'true identity' of a transwoman defined?

I thought we all agreed now that 'born in the wrong body' should be consigned to the bin? What 'true identity' of anyone does a belief in biological sex 'disrespect'?

It is an interesting over playing of a hand from a barrister who represents Stonewall over accusations that they over play theirs."

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1387149113460920321

I apologise, on my iPhone, just hitting 'f' here.

Have briefly read the initial issue, and am feeling Maya has been shafted, as it were. Will read, study, and respond.

Thank you maya for standing up for women's rights - I think you are very brave

The respectful and free expression of controversial, challenging beliefs is the lifeblood of an open, democratic society. But freedom of speech comes with responsibility. There is not freedom to incite violence, nor religious or racial hatred, nor to inflict a workplace on a trans person where they face discrimination at any moment."

inflict a workplace???? Dearie me.

IIRC Women's sex based rights are usually compared to Apartheid.

Well, quite.

Are they talking about misgendering here?

It might just be the word, "No" - several of the Rules of Misogyny might be in play, here. (Disclaimer - I haven't and won't click the clickbait.)

the most fundamentally abusive terms.

Are they talking about misgendering here?

She has also been very open about being a Mermaids Mum

“Independent” 😆😆

I am rather mystified as to what the authors understand the function of the workplace to be and the relationship they feel they are entitled to have with their colleagues.
As is often the case with many transactivists, important descriptors such as 'abuse' and 'discrimination' are seized and re-purposed.

(extract)
"And now to find that every day, when they go to work, someone can reject their identity in the most fundamentally abusive terms. It is unthinkable"

The respectful and free expression of controversial, challenging beliefs is the lifeblood of an open, democratic society. But freedom of speech comes with responsibility. There is not freedom to incite violence, nor religious or racial hatred, nor to inflict a workplace on a trans person where they face discrimination at any moment."

To be fair, the author of that piece and frequent upbraider of posters on FWR, is consistent in disliking actions that are congruent with asserting the rights of women as a sex class.

No-one was harassed for any reason. The discrimination was against Mayas beliefs. Maya is claiming discrimination against her.

This tweet turns the case on its head and claims it permits harassment. Which is utter nonsense, but that's par for the course. There's no truth they can use to elicit sympathy, so make up shit.