Goldfish, eh

Waterloo was a minor but inconsequential victory for the British in 1815.

I find myself having articles commissioned about irrelevant things that don’t matter at all all the time. Really, who doesn’t?

Tragic.

I am tired of this constant obfuscating of the fact that this tribunal was about whether Maya had been discriminated against, not that she was doing the discrimination. If people can’t be bothered to engage with that simple fact, there’s not point in proceeding further, because they’ve demonstrated that they can’t even bring themselves to think about women’s rights for even as long as it takes to understand this case.

Also: terrible article. Badly written, one eyed, poorly constructed. 1/10, see me after class.

So both Fae and Belcher (on R4 on Friday morning) have wheeled themselves out to publicly downplay the EAT judgement?

The lady doth protest too much methinks.

(Although someone should point out to Fae er al that if employer does not renew a fixed term contract it is considered to be dismissal.)

Funny how both the Forstater case, the ONS sex question and the woman in the maternity bill are all really really unimportant and "why did we bother?"

Well, why did Maya not have her contract renewed if stating men cannot become women is so obviously a valid belief?

Why did the ONS try to record sex by self-id?

Why did a maternity bill get written as though it could apply to men?

This is all important and the TRAs know it.

Given the author's proclivities, I don't want to know where that goldfish has been.

Is this about telling their daughter of their new identity? It may be that the daughter thinks of the author as a super duper goldfish, and they don't want to disavow the daughter that in fact, the goldfish is not quite as it seems is the daughter's eyes. Mommy and daddy will let her admire daddy a little longer before the big reveal.

Cardinal

I think a lot of them are convinced she's still going to lose because they heard she spent all day misgendering a non-existent trans colleague, which is why she was sacked.

Presumably Fae knows that's not true, but is writing an article that is consistent with that widespread view without saying it explicitly.

But unless the tribunal decides that personal belief gives you the right to hassle work colleagues and clients it is a hollow one, destined, in time, for that great toilet bowl in the sky.

Misunderstanding? Misrepresentation? Misinformation? Or just believing your own hype?

Maya's tribunal was not about whether she had the right to hassle work colleagues and clients, because she did not do those things.

It was about whether her employer could or could not cease to employ her for stating an opinion outside of work on a proposed law reform and its implications for the rights of a group protected under the Equality Act. A group Maya belongs to.

Maya argued that her employer dismissed her unfairly for exercising her freedom of speech - in her private life = outside of and unrelated to her work - on a protected belief.

The first tribunal said, no, your belief is too extreme to be protected, and so Maya had no right to claim unfair dismissal.

The appeal judge said the first judge applied the law incorrectly and Maya's belief is definitely protected.

And now another tribunal will decide whether Maya was unfairly dismissed for taking part in a public debate and expressing opinions her employer objects to its employees holding even when they are only expressed outside of work.

At no point was there a suggestion of Maya behaving in an unacceptable manner towards colleagues or clients.

OMG just in case of any doubt - I genuinely didn't mean 'faeces' to be a play on anyone's name. It's a joke I read over on the joke thread that's on chat!

The "incontinent" goldfish is the oddest detail of this odd and self indulgent drivel.

I’ve been trying to come up with a punchline to that.

How do you know if a goldfish is incontinent?

She doesn’t mind that it’s a lop-sided, incontinent goldfish.

Why the long faeces?

Hmm. Who to believe here? The lawyer who wrote a clear, eloquent account of why the judgement matters, or the non-lawyer whose main claim to fame is campaigning in support of violent and sadistic pornography?

Of course Fae finds it inconsequential. And had the court found against Maya, this would have been the greatest ruling on human interaction since the 10 Commandments.

Maya didn't try to change the law or break the law in her behaviour. No new laws were created in this judgment. The judge merely confirmed what was already set out in the EQA 2010 - Maya's protected right to hold a belief. The parties who have been trying to change, bend and lie about the law are the TRAs.

Is it maybe a story about the ultimate cruelty and futility of lying to #bekind ?

But no, as usual, the trans activists say black is white and up is down - you silly women, this isn't REALLY a win despite Maya winning. And so they just identify that they have won...,

Nailed it

Surely if it was so inconsequential, our favourite extreme porn advocate wouldn't have been commissioned to comment on it.

So the goldfish is women’s rights and the writer is getting ready to flush them down the toilet? Sounds about right.

But unless the tribunal decides that personal belief gives you the right to hassle work colleagues and clients ...
In case anyone missed it, here is an excellent thread from earlier today.

What are Fae's qualifications, or expertise, to pronounce that this outcome is minor, or not legally interesting? By what metric does Fae state that it was a 'minor' legal point? To my mind, the judgment was not won on a narrow technicality, but entirely ripped to shreds the lower court's findings. Fae doesn't provide any argumentation to back up the point that this was 'inconsequential'. It's just a bald assertion, something we are meant to accept. Fae says the case is minor, and so it is. Don't ask for reasons.

I find that this links back to the trans activist side's fascination with the postmodern, subversion and identity. If Keira Bell loses her appeal, there aren't going to be many (if any) gender critical feminists shrugging and saying 'it was to be expected. Yes, this is an inconsequential win for the trans side. it's like a dead goldfish, no biggie." Gender critical feminists, rather, will be upset and disappointed because they figure that losing that case actually means something - it has consequences in the real world.

But no, as usual, the trans activists say black is white and up is down - you silly women, this isn't REALLY a win despite Maya winning. And so they just identify that they have won, and they identify the case as never being of much practical import at all, and they retcon reality so that it's always been the case that this was a stupid little case, not worthy of any attention. Ignore the triumphant, salivating with glee, tweets from trans activist last year when Maya lost. I just find it fascinating how they manage to live life like this, so blinkered and stuck in a dream world. Wins are transformed into losses, and important cases are 'inconsequential'.

It says so much about them as a person doesn’t it? And yes, telling their own daughter on the eve of significant exams is telling too…