Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am

The Judge in the original case was so totally captured by TRA ideology it was excruciating, impartiality and objectivity went completely out of the window. How can that Judge be trusted to rule fairly, he needs reminding that 'Justice is blind' and of the reasons why that is.

The sheer confusion is huge

It's deliberate. Before the case "Maya was harassing transpeople at work and her views are not worthy of respect" after the case "we never said that, and this case supports trans rights"

TRA: "x is always y you bigot"
GC: [unarguable proof that TRA is wrong]
TRA: we didn't mean it literally / we never said that / this is a win for X is always z.

I can't see that person's tweets as I'm blocked. No idea why.

The state of that.
Hint: the clue's in the name. Gender critical. (Tbf I don't think it's the best moniker, but I would have thought by now people claiming to speak for GC women might have the tiniest clue that we don't believe anyone's gender - if they even have one - is the most important thing about them)

Sheila Fogerty is doing a slot on sex, gender, identity and conflicting interests on LBC at 3pm.....following on from the judgement

WinterTrees that person can't even distinguish between sex and gender to start with so no wonder they're making no sense!

They have reframed "sex matters" as "My gender is the most important thing about me!"

The sheer confusion is huge.

[quote SeaShoreGalore]@zaramysaviour - yes that’s what I assumed. Have signed up for a year even though money is tight. Its £5 a moment, but knowing that (if It was relevant) I could say at work that I don’t think you can change biological sex, is priceless.[/quote]
Do you have a link to the website please?

I guess it was inevitable that there would be a frantic re-writing of the entire narrative in the wake of this judgement, but I'm finding the scale and extent of it pretty baffling.

This thread from a blue tick TRA twitter account with 57k followers. Someone who is obviously deeply embedded in the debate, who is claiming that GC feminists believe our gender is the single most important thing about us

twitter.com/aedison/status/1402943974151757828

When are they going to realise that the deliberate misrepresentation is only damaging themselves? That reality and reason are gaining traction and it's time to actually engage with proper, fact-based arguments to forge a way forward?

@zaramysaviour - yes that’s what I assumed. Have signed up for a year even though money is tight. Its £5 a moment, but knowing that (if It was relevant) I could say at work that I don’t think you can change biological sex, is priceless.

I couldn't see a single supportive comment on the replies
twitter.com/CGDev/status/1402921904973942789

❤️❤️❤️

And it would also be nice, and perhaps legally wise, to stop calling us anti-trans campaigners

GC feminists are not campaigning against trans people. In this case, the campaign was to be allowed to speak and live by reality and not be persecuted for not sharing, or pretending we share, someone else's non-reality-based belief about whether sex can change.

It is like saying that if you want to be allowed to say you don't believe in god without being persecuted, you are "campaigning against religious people".

That's an interesting statement from CGD, can they appeal this appeal ruling further?
It could go to the Court of Appeal if they can get permission, although I doubt the Court of Appeal would hear it personally as there's not much more to add.

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 hope so! 🤞

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

Good read

[quote ChattyLion]BBC have finally covered it:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579[/quote]
Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, a charity that supports transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people, said: "This is not the win anti-trans campaigners will suggest in the coming days.
"We, as trans people, are protected by equality law and this decision in the Maya Forstater case does not give anyone the right to unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against us because we are trans."

Honestly how many times does it have to be said that this case was not about giving people the right to harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against trans people.

And what planet are you living on to think it is "not a win" now that now women can no longer be sacked for believing that sex is real, immutable and that it matters.

Thank you Errol and Goingtobe for the links.

99. The effect of a GRC, whilst broad as a matter of law, does not mean that a person who, like the Claimant, continues to believe that a trans woman with a GRC is still a man, is necessarily in breach of the GRA by doing so; the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not, any more than the recognition by the State of Civil Partnerships can compel some persons of faith to believe that a marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman is acceptable. That is not to say, of course, that the Claimant can, as a result of her belief, disregard the GRC; clearly, she cannot do so in circumstances where the acquired gender is legally relevant, e.g. in a claim of sex discrimination or harassment. Referring to a trans person by their pre-GRC gender in any of the settings in which the EqA applies could amount to harassment related to one or more protected characteristics; whether or not it does will depend, as in any claim of harassment, on a careful assessment of all relevant factors, including whether the conduct was unwanted, the perception of the trans person concerned and whether it is reasonable for the impugned conduct to have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the trans person. A simple example of a situation where referring to a trans person by their pre-GRC gender would probably not amount to harassment is where the trans person in question is happy to discuss their trans status or is sympathetic to or shares the Claimant’s gender-critical belief. The Tribunal itself acknowledged that “Many trans people are happy to discuss their trans status”, and had before it the uncontested evidence of Kristin Harrison, a gender-critical trans woman, who, presumably, would not have felt harassed by being referred to as a man in some circumstances. It is difficult, therefore, to understand the Tribunal’s conclusion that the Claimant’s belief “necessarily harms the rights of others through her refusal to accept the full effect of a GRC…”. Not only is this conclusion predicated on the incorrect assumption that the Claimant would always misgender trans persons, irrespective of the circumstances, and that the full effect of a GRC goes beyond legal purposes, but it also fails to recognise that whether there is harassment in a given situation is a highly fact-sensitive question.

[quote McDuffy]Found this a good read by one of her legal team
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly[/quote]
That was a brilliant read.

THIS statement made my jaw drop

''Amnesty Ireland went furthest of all by putting its name to a statement calling for people with Gender Critical beliefs to be “denied legitimate political representation”. Even typing that sentence feels implausible.''

And loving the MN name check.

We’re currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers.

That's an interesting statement from CGD, can they appeal this appeal ruling further? 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?

Btw, here's Peter Daly's email address if anyone would like to join me in sending a note of thanks: [email protected] (and yes, I know Maya's the real hero; I'm contacting her too :) )

Ouch at @ManduReid's O-o-O:

twitter.com/ManduReid/status/1402904386871959553/retweets/with_comments

I'm hoping this decision will lift the chilling effect to a significant degree. Up till today people were aware that there was a very large penumbra of "someone might not like that" around a core of harassment and abuse.

I'm hoping this will help Marion Millar and all the other women vexatiously reported to the police / employer / governing body.

The Youtube is Miss Otis Regrets.

What next? Will employees be freer to speak while around them trans activists are trying with only modest success to police what's not to their taste? With the result being that trans activists will turn more into very annoying busybodies rather than people to be genuinely afraid of?

That's the hope. That's why we were all crowdfunding this case. To have assurance legal protection against them.