Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am

The TRAs are arguing on Twitter that if GC feminists want their own spaces then they should campaign for them

reminds me of this thread by a TRA who harassed women at WPUK meetings www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4265668-Trans-in-the-UK-What-the-Hell-are-we-going-to-do

a generous donor (not her!)

I totally assumed it was her! Thanks for clarifying.

The sheer confusion is huge.

The TRAs are arguing on Twitter that if GC feminists want their own spaces then they should campaign for them.

Hmmm ... and what should we call these women’s places?

You couldn’t make it up.

I did a silent 'YES!!' At work today when I got the BBC notification through. This is huge!

For those speculating, the Sex Matters email says "a generous donor (not her!)".

Avery Edison is a not only homophobic and misogynistic but also a very confused individual.

"We've never used the term 'born in the wrong body'"

"We've never said sex isn't real and/or important"

"Stonewall has never said it wants to do away with sex as a category/sex segregated spaces."

PIVOT! PIVOT!

Consequently, gratuitous use of language in the workplace that someone in either group might reasonably find offensive could be unlawful harassment

I wonder if that would include the term ‘cis’.

@Soontobe60

Here is a link to the Sex Matters donations page: sex-matters.org/take-action/donate/

If you sign up for a year, your donation will be matched by a ‘generous donor’.

Sex matters is building an organisation to bring clarity back to policy, law and language, and undo the damage caused by the culture of “no debate” about sex and gender.

[quote littlbrowndog]Good read and summing up good

oldsquare.co.uk/forstater-v-cgd-europe-others/[/quote]
It is indeed

...the effect of the EAT’s judgment is that the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the Equality Act 2010 will apply both to gender critical beliefs and to other protected characteristics...
...
Consequently, gratuitous use of language in the workplace that someone in either group might reasonably find offensive could be unlawful harassment – for example, calling someone with gender critical beliefs a ‘terf’ or a ‘bigot’
...
respectful discussion or debate is unlikely to be unlawful and those holding opposing beliefs must tolerate each other, even if they find each other’s beliefs offensive
...
More generally, the EAT’s judgment in this case strongly emphasises the broad scope of beliefs that are protected by EqA10, s10 and the narrowness of the enquiry in which Tribunals should engage. Six-day inquisitions into a person’s beliefs of the kind that occurred in this case should be a thing of the past.

Bringing it on to Scotland

I know it's been posted before but this from Peter Daly is outstanding:

www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly/

The fawning over Avery Edison is what put me off listening to The Guilty Feminist.

Good read and summing up good

oldsquare.co.uk/forstater-v-cgd-europe-others/

Could they be considering an out of court settlement with Maya to prevent a re-run of the original Employment Tribunal in light of this Judgement?

I don’t think the actual case has been heard yet so it wouldn’t be a re-run. This is only an appeal of the preliminary hearing.

I think there's both - deliberate straw-manning and disingenuous pretence, and also a lot of confusion over why gender does not equal sex - which is understandable since gender is widely used to mean sex in many contexts.

I've also seen a lot of both "This is a win for trans rights" and "Trans people are being persecuted by this ruling".

[quote McDuffy]I couldn't see a single supportive comment on the replies
twitter.com/CGDev/status/1402921904973942789[/quote]
One of the replies to CGD is:

“U ok hun”

A step back for inclusivity? Or an expensive outcome for the company for only being inclusive of the 'right kind' of people?

I think this is a Stonewall 'term' all my correspondence with the DWP talks about, "inclusion" and I keep pointing out that the Equality Act is not about 'inclusion' and that some discrimination is not just legal but desirable.

Sorry ItsAll - I got distracted halfway through posting and ended up repeating you!

[quote McDuffy]Found this a good read by one of her legal team
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly[/quote]
It's excellent. And Mumsnet got a mention too!

The sheer confusion is huge.

I think it's more deliberate obfuscation than confusion, tbh. The following tweet gives it away:

JSYK whenever they do the “actually I don’t care about my gender I care about my sex” thing that’s a really obvious lie, they see the two things as the same, don’t cede them any ground by accepting the premise that they aren’t dedicated to defending reactionary gender ideas

Further instructions then follow:

seeing this happen in my precious menchies and these people are truly idiots and bad liars and you should not engage with them

There's only so much damage limitation you can do by telling people how to think and which mantras to repeat. How long will it take before they realise we've now reached the point where instead of increasingly desperate deception and deflection, all the cunning tactics need to be dropped altogether so we can sort this mess out.