Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

Yes, it's so bloody male centric and convenient, isn't it, that women's views that are 'unwelcome', are so offensive they can't actually be heard. And he doesn't see anything glaringly misogynistic about that. He thinks it's completely normal.

But sadly it's not surprising. I have a male acquaintance who would pride himself on his liberal values and who has shut down discussion by women (including me) because he genuinely thinks he has the right to do so and he has the entitlement to tell us why we're 'wrong'. The idea that he - a man - should not tell women how to feel about that which affects and relates to women appears to escape him. The sheer fucking arrogance boils my piss.

Have the times been decided for each side to sum up tomorrow?

I was born really premature; I'm pleased to see that not accepting the horoscope assigned to me at birth is a valid choice

We need a new thread soon.
Maya

To Maya: It must be gruelling but what amazing work you have done. Thank you. I know of several young women who, whilst they are still not brave enough to say it, have listened and realised you are speaking for them too.

Waiting with baited breath for Sex Matters: The Musical!

Tabby, you are a superstar! Thanks to you and everyone else for helping the likes of me follow this!

Disclaimer that it isn't precise!

@MForstater I'll do it, it's probably easiest for me (it'll take a bit of a while!). Well done.

Hi @MForstater I hope you are bearing up OK. This whole thing must be exhausting.
Do your legal team have a feel for how this is going at this stage?

Thank you everyone!

Can I ask a favour?

Is it possible to compile all the transcript posts into a Google Doc (or similar) ?

I will put on my website and try to do a best/most complete single version from the tweets and Mumsnet posts (for future playwrights, musical theatre, history what hat you...)

Does anyone know, will the judgement have to set out reasoning and come to a conclusion on all the legal arguments? For example if they decide her relationship with cgd was not caught by the EA, and therefore she loses, will the judgement stop there? Or will they also consider everything else - was it about the core belief or expression of it? Was their hr process fair? Etc etc. It won't make any difference to whether she has won or lost, but we won't learn much if they don't set out reasoning on the beliefs/expression issue, and it would make it difficult to know whether to appeal.

Everyone has a date of birth, so everyone has a star sign, right? And that star sign says they have certain characteristics inherent to them because of their date of birth.

And if you don't match the characteristics of your star sign, it's not because those labels are wrong, it's because your date of birth is wrong, and you should've been born on a different date that reflects who you truly are as a person.

Thanks for these clarifications on appeal grounds, appreciated.

So if she loses based on them saying her FPFW leaflet was beyond the political pale, given that our actual government has rejected self-ID for the reasons to which the leaflet refers, that might be an argument for appeal? Even if in 2018 they thought it was some big disgrace, it now reflects government policy.

If it's 8 weeks, will we be deep into BC, PD and AP's next action in re: Allison Bailey before we hear (or even longer)?

I like that analogy too (as religious ones get a bit bogged down eg catholic or traditional jewish schools not employment someone who is living in sin or not of the faith - there is a lto of case law and separate legal rules about things like NHS Catholic doctors not being obliged to do abortions etc which just muddies the waters in the trans area where we are really talking about fact v. pie in the sky - in that MF has in a sense truth on her side and everyone is wanting to force people to peddle that the earth is flat)

• got the law wrong
• didn't apply the correct law
• didn't follow the correct procedure and this affected the decision
• made a decision that is not supported by any evidence
• was unfairly biased

You cannot appeal just because you disagree with the decision. An appeal is not a rehearing of the case. However, whilst points of law are the strongest appeals, they are not the only appeals possible.

She does seem good. I love her hair as well.

On the question of OD's summing up, I'm as curious as anyone else. CGD's witnesses have repeatedly undermined their own argument that the problem was Maya's expression of her belief, rather than her holding of the belief, because they couldn't come up with any examples of her expressing her belief in an aggressive or offensive way. The worst thing they cited was that she brought in a single copy of a leaflet coloured red and black, and left it on her desk.

So I think perhaps OD will focus on the "Maya wasn't really an employee" angle. Again, this will be difficult because CGD referred to her as an employee in an important document. I dare say OD is a very good lawyer, but I don't envy her.