Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

999 replies

Sophoclesthefox · 15/03/2022 17:03

Forgive the presumption, @Mforstater, but you’re probably busy in the pub right now, or passing on all of the fan mail to you legal team Grin so I’ve made a new thread to carry on the fascinating discussion.

Round up your cats, rabbits and weasels, and let’s go!

——————————————————————————————

From thread one, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions hmm.

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
mateysmum · 16/03/2022 10:13

Holds breath.....

bishophaha · 16/03/2022 10:11

Is it CGD with new evidence or BC? I'm not watching but following the tweets only. It refers to 'markers' which I dunno what they are!

bishophaha · 16/03/2022 10:09

@nauticant

If you look at the evidence of "offence", the CGD staff have fallen back time and time again to "the tone of the messages". But as we've seen from BC carefully taking the CGD staff through the messages, it's clear that in many cases they misunderstood the messages, or simply didn't bother to understand what they were about. If it's all about "tone" and reasonable substance is assumed to be transphobia, then "tone" looks very weak as a cause to let someone go. Especially since you have to ask the question: what were they being motivated by when they chose to judge the messages without finding out what they were about?
Yes, this is becoming clear. It was on the previous thread I think where someone asked 'what form of wording could Maya used to have communicated/express her belief that wouldn't have been problematic?' and I think BC did address that briefly yesterday.
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 16/03/2022 10:09

Ooh, my link has just come through!

Pluvia · 16/03/2022 10:09

Something's up: new evidence?

BC This will have such a huge impact on this case.

tabbycatstripy · 16/03/2022 10:08

BC says CGD is making an extraordinary application to introduce new evidence and he has some things to say about that. EJ isn't sure.

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 16/03/2022 10:04

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

I still don't have a link. I don't wish to mither Maya, so I'll follow along here.
I'll be doing the same.

All posts about what's being said gratefully received!

BIWI · 16/03/2022 10:03

Glad it wasn't just me @Ereshkigalangcleg!

nauticant · 16/03/2022 10:01

Welcome to the conference

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/03/2022 10:01

I was also trying to figure out what WORIADS meant! Grin

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 16/03/2022 10:01

I still don't have a link. I don't wish to mither Maya, so I'll follow along here.

nauticant · 16/03/2022 10:00

If you look at the evidence of "offence", the CGD staff have fallen back time and time again to "the tone of the messages". But as we've seen from BC carefully taking the CGD staff through the messages, it's clear that in many cases they misunderstood the messages, or simply didn't bother to understand what they were about. If it's all about "tone" and reasonable substance is assumed to be transphobia, then "tone" looks very weak as a cause to let someone go. Especially since you have to ask the question: what were they being motivated by when they chose to judge the messages without finding out what they were about?

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 16/03/2022 09:56

Not liking humans being called primates is a tad, erm, creationist?

Anyway, will be trying to follow today's proceedings alongside some freelance work stuff. I'm very much enjoying seeing Ben Cooper's abilities.

Datun · 16/03/2022 09:52

@Ereshkigalangcleg

So many of these viral genderist posts that get shared are completely idiotic.
Aren't they, tho 🙄

Social media gives a platform for people to whom you wouldn't have given the time of day, pre-Internet.

Pluvia · 16/03/2022 09:50

Just a tip for anyone joining the conference today. I thought from the wording of the link I was sent you needed a new PIN every day, but yesterday's has worked for me: now waiting for the conference host to join.

BIWI · 16/03/2022 09:49

Thank you @NecessaryScene and @nauticant Smile

Rodedooda · 16/03/2022 09:49

I would hope the weight of evidence is also strongly pointing towards employment/prospective employment - particularly when she was listed as personnel on the funding application.

Sadly I'm not on the panel...

nauticant · 16/03/2022 09:48

Worthy, not Worth.

nauticant · 16/03/2022 09:48

BIWI: Is Worth of Respect in a Democratic Society

NecessaryScene · 16/03/2022 09:47

NWORIADS: "Not Worthy Of Respect In A Democratic Society"

nauticant · 16/03/2022 09:46

If this was in the High Court I would expect important issues like that to be separated off and decided initially in separate hearings but I'm wondering whether an ET is a smaller scale affair which is supposed to be a condensed procedure in which they tackle everything all in one go.

The issue about NWORIADS was an appeal against something that, very conveniently for the first ET, would conclude the case quickly.

BIWI · 16/03/2022 09:46

Sorry - I'm usually good at acronyms/abbreviations, but can someone enlighten me as to IWORIADS?

TIA

And very good luck @MForstater Flowers

justaftb · 16/03/2022 09:46

@OnlyTheTitosaurusOfTheIceberg

IAverydefinitelyNAL but it seems a little back to front to me that the tribunal hears evidence on the organisational culture, on the nature of Maya’s tweets, on any social media policy the company may or may not have had etc etc BEFORE they consider the issue of whether or not she had employee status. To me that feels like the fundamental point - even more so than whether her belief IWORIADS TBH, grateful though I am to have that clarified by an EAT - because if Maya is considered not to have been an employee then her case fails no matters how authoritarian and non-inclusive the workplace culture was/is?

Can someone wiser and more knowledgeable than me explain why it’s done this way round?

That's a good point. Find out first if she was considered to be an employee and if yes, then review if policy/process were correctly applied .
Redshoeblueshoe · 16/03/2022 09:44

I haven't been able to get a log in, I expect after yesterday the demand is through the roof Grin

justaftb · 16/03/2022 09:44

@nauticant

My sense is that one part is leaning towards Maya because the CGD workplace, in its senior and junior staff, was hostile towards GC views but I have no sense of how the being employed or prospectively to be employed is going.
Thank you.
Swipe left for the next trending thread