Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Maya Forstater’s appeal - discussion thread 2

252 replies

Sophoclesthefox · 28/04/2021 16:40

I see the last thread filled up, but there might still be enough to discuss as a round up of the afternoon’s events to keep going into a second thread.

Thread one here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4228233-Maya-Forstaters-appeal-skeleton

OP posts:
Sophoclesthefox · 28/04/2021 17:14

Anyway, I was really interested in the heavy reliance on the Bench Book in the EAT submission I linked above. . Any ideas why this was? I had understood that it’s relevance was in determining how a person is treated in court, by the judiciary etc, but it seems to have been extrapolated from that into a set of guiding principles for discussing gender issues in the workplace.

What gives with that? It’s not law. It’s guidance, created for a specific purpose. Why is it being cited as if it were precedent?

OP posts:
jhuizinga · 28/04/2021 17:13

The Respondents' case today made it very clear the extent of the power grab that gender ideologues have made on women's sex-based rights and the huge disparity there is between the consideration that proponents of the ideology believe should be given to those who want to be regarded as female and those who actually are female. It would be great if it helps open the eyes of people (especially our politicians) who until now have been able or willing to turn a blind eye to the implications of denying the reality of biological sex.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 28/04/2021 17:13

Gender is NOT recognised in law save for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. There is no protection for a gender identity outside of this.

Sex is a protected characteristic and recognised in law. There can be situations where the right to single sex provision can override the protections for gender reassignment.

Fieldoftheclothofgold · 28/04/2021 17:12

Because in that context gender is just another word for sex. As it is in the GRA. (Afaik).

So the people using that protected characteristic have changed their legal sex. Therefore sex is a thing. And nothing to do with gender.

CrazyNeighbour · 28/04/2021 17:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NavigatingAdolescence · 28/04/2021 17:11

@Anovaneway

SEX is a protected characteristic - and sex and gender are two different things.

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex.

Oh dear.
titchy · 28/04/2021 17:10

@Anovaneway

gender reassignment. If sex is gender (it isn’t) why would it do that?

Because in that context gender is just another word for sex. As it is in the GRA. (Afaik).

Oh dear. I'm (almost) embarrassed for you.
NavigatingAdolescence · 28/04/2021 17:10

@Anovaneway

Because we have to derail into ridiculous hyperbolic situations whenever possible in order to paint Maya and all those who hold GC beliefs as the devil incarnate.

No ‘we’ don’t and I don’t think Maya is the devil. It’s to highlight the unpleasantness in those that would seek to use protected belief as a cover for deliberately misgendering people and preventing people from using the facilities they are allowed to use and getting on with their lives.

Are we allowed to ask the Staniland question at this point?

Allowed to use on what grounds?

Anovaneway · 28/04/2021 17:08

gender reassignment. If sex is gender (it isn’t) why would it do that?

Because in that context gender is just another word for sex. As it is in the GRA. (Afaik).

LibertyMole · 28/04/2021 17:07

Embarrassingadmissions, thanks for that link. It is really interesting.

Sophoclesthefox · 28/04/2021 17:06

@Anovaneway

SEX is a protected characteristic - and sex and gender are two different things.

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex.

That’s specifically not what the EHRC concluded

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

OP posts:
yourhairiswinterfire · 28/04/2021 17:06

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex.

Single sex exemptions wouldn't exist if that were true.

Fieldoftheclothofgold · 28/04/2021 17:02

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex

Then you didn’t follow the case. In law, they are different things. The EA recognises sex AND gender reassignment. If sex is gender (it isn’t) why would it do that?

mummymathsteacher · 28/04/2021 17:00

Thank you, it did seem to good to be true that we might know today

Anovaneway · 28/04/2021 17:00

SEX is a protected characteristic - and sex and gender are two different things.

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex.

Shedbuilder · 28/04/2021 17:00

Thank you, Embarrassing, that looks interesting and could explain a lot.

Sophoclesthefox · 28/04/2021 17:00

Hah, Eresh, I was about to reiterate that same point!

None of this is about establishing people’s “rights” to misgender their colleagues.

This is about the right to hold and state beliefs about the world, based on your understanding of it, and to be assured that you will not lose your job because of them.

That’s applicable to all of us. For all such beliefs as qualify.

OP posts:
yourhairiswinterfire · 28/04/2021 16:58

@mummymathsteacher

Sorry to ask a basic question, but I havent6been able to follow twitter this afternoon. Are we still expecting a potential judgement today?
No, it will likely be in a couple of months.
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 28/04/2021 16:58

@mummymathsteacher

Sorry to ask a basic question, but I havent6been able to follow twitter this afternoon. Are we still expecting a potential judgement today?
No. This afternoon Choudhury J indicated possibly up to 2 months or so.
Fieldoftheclothofgold · 28/04/2021 16:58

So...

If she wins, does calling people “TERFS” and so on become (effectively) harassment because their beliefs are protected under the EA?

mummymathsteacher · 28/04/2021 16:57

Sorry to ask a basic question, but I havent6been able to follow twitter this afternoon. Are we still expecting a potential judgement today?

Anovaneway · 28/04/2021 16:57

Because we have to derail into ridiculous hyperbolic situations whenever possible in order to paint Maya and all those who hold GC beliefs as the devil incarnate.

No ‘we’ don’t and I don’t think Maya is the devil. It’s to highlight the unpleasantness in those that would seek to use protected belief as a cover for deliberately misgendering people and preventing people from using the facilities they are allowed to use and getting on with their lives.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/04/2021 16:54

And just to state again that this case is not about justifying being offensive to trans colleagues in the workplace, which is media and social media misinformation spread by bad actors. She did not do this. It's about the right to hold a perfectly rational belief based on biological reality, and to speak up about it where necessary to safeguard children and protect women's rights.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 28/04/2021 16:51

I'm going to include my favourite discussion of the phenomenon of preference falsification as it feels in line with MF's case.

www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674707580

Preference falsification, according to the economist Timur Kuran, is the act of misrepresenting one’s wants under perceived social pressures. It happens frequently in everyday life, such as when we tell the host of a dinner party that we are enjoying the food when we actually find it bland. In Private Truths, Public Lies , Kuran argues convincingly that the phenomenon not only is ubiquitous but has huge social and political consequences. Drawing on diverse intellectual traditions, including those rooted in economics, psychology, sociology, and political science, Kuran provides a unified theory of how preference falsification shapes collective decisions, orients structural change, sustains social stability, distorts human knowledge, and conceals political possibilities.

A common effect of preference falsification is the preservation of widely disliked structures. Another is the conferment of an aura of stability on structures vulnerable to sudden collapse. When the support of a policy, tradition, or regime is largely contrived, a minor event may activate a bandwagon that generates massive yet unanticipated change.

In distorting public opinion, preference falsification also corrupts public discourse and, hence, human knowledge. So structures held in place by preference falsification may, if the condition lasts long enough, achieve increasingly genuine acceptance. The book demonstrates how human knowledge and social structures co-evolve in complex and imperfectly predictable ways, without any guarantee of social efficiency.

Sophoclesthefox · 28/04/2021 16:49

Thanks cardinal

Here’s the link to the EHRC submission from yesterday

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

OP posts: