Forstater judgment tomorrow

Ah, and who else recalls their sinking feeling on learning that J James Tayler was promoted? To the post of Senior Circuit Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal no less.

www.judiciary.uk/announcements/senior-circuit-judge-of-the-employment-appeal-tribunal-appointment-james-tayler/

WORIADS and the ability to express the beliefs that are WORIADS.

It's going to be while for HR and workplaces to understand what this means for even-handedness and mutual respect. I wonder if they've been so accustomed to discounting women's rights in a number of areas that they're now finding themselves brought up short to consider wider human rights and realise that they are there to promote good relations between protected characteristics, not to favour one or more particular groups above the others with PCs.

Tbh the reverberations from Mayas appeal - WORIADS -are still only just sinking in.

This latest judgement will be a giant iceberg that quietly, slowly, and surely changes things.

Well done! You right.
I bet there isn't much out there (in the way of resources) for employers/organisations on how to be this type of inclusive organisation. One that values diverse experiences view points opinions and beliefs.

That bit at the end of Helen Joyce's article made me tear up a bit too. Thanks for posting it

Oh thanks for posting that link to Helen Joyce's article. That was a truly wonderful read.

I do not have the courage to out myself as gender critical in my life yet as am fearful of employment and social backlash. I am in awe of the courage of those who can and I am in awe of people like Maya, Allison, JK, Helen Joyce, the two Julies, Kathleen Stock and I know I have missed some great women warriors of truth. As well of course in awe of Glinner who has deeply suffered also for his committment to reality.

to you all. You are Giants. All of you.

Conversation about the judgment with Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater.

Helen Joyce's newsletter item about the judgment that gives a timeline of the 3 year odyssey.

www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-12/?mc_cid=13ad22dc83&mc_eid=8ea042b135

Transcript of Maya's R4 Today programme interview about the judgment.

otter.ai/u/ptLA6-IlAStoD9aTpBTjPpelfmc?mc_cid=13ad22dc83&mc_eid=8ea042b135

Yes. That's it. It's like an unearned title - like someone insisting you call them professor or doctor because they would have liked to have gone to university or medical school.

Well, nobody is asking us to avoid the use of third person pronouns.

What they are asking us to do - or rather, trying to criminalise us for not doing - is use the wrong sexed pronouns for someone.

I'm willing to perform a few subtle verbal gymnastics to get out of doing that without being accused of harassment.

Indeed or to continually be on edge to try and get it "right" or to notice when they get it "wrong" in order to ensure they "correct" themselves. We are talking about language that is used all the time. It is completely unreasonable to ask people to do this with language this fundamental.

Well I am going to contribute to this articulate and interesting discussion by saying my pronouns are fuck/this/shit.

PS I loved^^ I like big TEXT and I cannot lie

You can get round the pronoun thing quite easily.

Is the person there?

If yes, address them directly.

"That's a crucial point from David," - turn and face David - "especially what you said about the depletion of government grant in that area. It ties in with Marion's graph where she displayed the rising demand for this service, and how her department's already creaking."

If no, use the person's name to make it clear who you're talking about and then turn it round so you're talking in the first person.

"In our meeting David made a really crucial point about the depletion of government grant in that area", or "I'd like to explore the point David made about the depletion of government grant in that area".

"Has anyone seen David today? I wanted to follow up on the issue of the depletion of government grant in that area."

You: "Is David in today? I wanted to discuss the issue of the depletion of government grant in that area which was raised in our last meeting."
Other colleague: "No, I think he's working from home today."
You: "Oh, no worries, I'll send an email/set up another meeting for next week."

Like any analogy it isn't perfect but this is the best comparison I've come across, much better than mine.

It a really good point about the use of pronouns in big meetings, I think I could use preferred pronouns in someone's presence if they had a clear name swap and opposite presentation but most likely it'd just make me less able to talk. (asd) I'm a bit too Kriten learns to lie

Well I've used this ruling to get the manager of the inclusion group to agree that inclusion = all viewpoints if expressed reasonably.

I said it's not really inclusion otherwise.

She agreed!

Conscientious objection to a workplace policy that differs from the law?

I'm wondering who would need to be categorised as a conscientious objector? It used to be (broadly) people who demurred from a national policy/law (it had its origins in anti-vaccination in C19) and came to wider prominence as a way to refuse active military service on the basis of religious or moral principles.

Yes, workplaces should allow for 'conscientious objection' while requiring all parties equally to maintain civility, using the same bar for every employee.

Equal rights.

Used to be a thing.

Running with my thoughts on this, @achillestoes ... David might like not it, but the workplace should accept it, just as it accepts other non-use of titles.