Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am

Stonewall have an... interesting... take.

They're putting it out for their community whom they'd mislead and to add to the confusion for the baffled public at large who have no idea at all what's been going on.

I've just realised that's a banned phrase sorry mumsnet ! I hate it but it's meant as an illustration of the ridiculousness of the argument being made !

I just took a look at Twitter and loads of accounts are spouting this while spitting blood at 'terfs'

I do wonder how many brain cells that movement has collectively

Does this ruling mean that workplaces cannot demand that employees include pronouns in email signatures or encourage employees to declare pronouns in meetings for example?

In no way am I suggesting that transgender people should be misgendered, they are of course free to share or not share their preferred pronouns.

Squeezed out!

PM is now on Radio 4. Will they try to squeeze coverage of the court decision out of the programme and, if not, will Evan Davis engage with it in a journalistic and even-handed way?

Well, I'd hope that nobody is engaging on those terms (the deliberate misframing) - a correction and move on, there's no point to engaging with bad faith actors beyond correction.

Will Moy (Full Fact) gave evidence to a Brexit hearing and reported something Tom Phillips said:

"When malicious actors find ways to exploit those and turn them against your audiences, it’s time to update your reporting process so that your powerful platforms and principles can’t be misused."

twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1182378697090879490?s=20

Bit late to the party. So coming here to and offer huge congratulations and heart felt thanks to Maya before reading whole thread. Compelled belief is not law in the UK thanks to you. Absolute shero.

I totally agree that there's a lot of frantic re-framing going on, but it's still bizarre to see a movement that is so totally invested in believing that everyone hates them. Despite being told, calmly and repeatedly (and in 3000 measured and compassionate words in JKR's case) that there is no hate.

But still, here we are: lololol TERFs are so clapped they’re celebrating a court ruling that said they have no right to discriminate and harass as their beliefs are just that, beliefs. You lost, weirdos!

(quote from twitter ^)

Ahh yes, Stonewall must now be absolutely dreading the Allison Bailey case.

And it's quite something that Maya must have said hundreds of times that she had absolutely no intention of harassing anyone. That's not the point. The point is to be able to say 'that's a man and this is why it's important' and not be shut down or, in her case, fired.

But of course saying "that's a man" is harassment and quite possibly life threatening

But the judgement is very clear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse, harm or discriminate against others

Pity they didn't tell themselves this before writing that ''nice business you got here'' letter to Allison Bailley's Chambers, eh?

And yes, as someone has commented on Twitter, saying that women can't harass transwomen is not meant to be reassuring to transwomen, it's meant to reframe women as the aggressor.

It is hard to hear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse others?

I know. They can't even hear themselves.

Honestly, you would think, that after all the foot in mouth rubbish they've spouted lately, they would scrutinise every single utterance before pressing send.

And it's quite something that Maya must have said hundreds of times that she had absolutely no intention of harassing anyone. That's not the point. The point is to be able to say 'that's a man and this is why it's important' and not be shut down or, in her case, fired.

It looks like some are seeking to occupy the states of "this is terrible" and "this is a very good outcome" simultaneously. Schrödinger would have loved it.

Stonewall have an... interesting... take.

"Today, an Employment Tribunal Appeal ruled that ‘gender critical’ beliefs are protected under the Equality Act as ‘philosophical beliefs’. But the judgement is very clear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse, harm or discriminate against others."
twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1402955054018174978?s=19

While this news may be hard to hear, we must remember that this case has no bearing on the protections that trans people have in the workplace. In fact, these protections have been clearly re-affirmed in the ruling itself.

It is hard to hear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse others?

Excellently worded.

One of the replies to CGD is:

“U ok hun”

My favourite is :

"Cry harder"

Going back to the comments about pronouns and misgendering people, is they/them still an acceptable neutral term.

I very rarely use he or she and use they instead. For example where is x? When they get back will you ask them to come and see me.

Now the classic reverse ferret where they have to deny they ever said X, despite all the evidence that they did, all to convince themselves that the ''t*rfs'' lost.

There's a documentary non Netflix called "Behind the Curve" about flat earthers. I watched it with DD to help develop her critical thinking. It's fascinating the way these people think. Science is about figuring out way things work, whereas flat earthers (and TRAs) have already decided how things work and are looking for any "evidence" they can find to back their view. If they find evidence that contradicts their view then they work out why this evidence is wrong. It's a really interesting watch and there are lots of parallels.

Did anyone else hear non-binary Jamie on LBC? Whiny petulance about how it was all so unfair that now GC people couldn't be silenced and sacked from their employments.

It would have sounded awful any other day but saying this today and immediately after Naomi Cunningham had provided her analysis was a terrible look.

On the old Maya thread, there were posters saying they hope she loses so she doesn't win the right to discriminate against/harass trans people at work.

Wouldn't have it when they were told that that wasn't at all what the case was about and no one would support that. We even linked to Ben Coopers specific examples during the appeal of the difference between holding a belief and using the belief to harass someone, to prove that the case wasn't asking for the right to do that, but nope, wouldn't have it.

Now the classic reverse ferret where they have to deny they ever said X, despite all the evidence that they did, all to convince themselves that the ''t*rfs'' lost.