Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

541 replies

Spero · 07/11/2022 21:43

On Oct 27 2022, Eventbrite pulled my book launch event for 'Transpositions - personal journeys into gender criticism'. This was a collection of stories from men and women about how they got involved in issues around sex and gender. Some of you may have contributed.

They told me that I was promoting 'violent and dangerous' content. I asked them to explain themselves. They haven't. So I am taking them to court for unlawful discrimination against my gender critical belief.

I wrote about it in the Critic here thecritic.co.uk/why-is-eventbrite-obstructing-my-book-launch/

I am hoping that some people may feel able to do a spot of gardening. I know its dark and miserable and not the best weather for gardening, but I think this could be quite an important piece of digging. There are some really important questions to ask about how private companies, based overseas are allowed to dictate what we think or say.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Waitwhat23 · 15/11/2022 21:41

This sums up the nonsense that is 'cis' quite nicely for me.

Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 15/11/2022 21:09

Cis is not a valid prefix because it implies I am a subset of woman based on some nebulous stereotyped regressive concept of womanhood. I do not have the gender identity of woman: I simply am a woman.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/11/2022 20:23

Usually it doesn't matter whether a person is cisgender or transgender except where doctors are involved, but because gender critical people spend so much time differentiating between women who are or are not transgender, it's a useful prefix.

Oh dear. You seem to have entirely overlooked the many many female voices who have said again and again, in here and many other virtual and physical places, in courts of law, bravely in public spaces, through any media that do not silence them, in the very book whose launch led to this thread, that it does matter to us.

Why is that @DadJoke ? Do our voices not matter? Do we not matter, when weighed against the needs of a small group of males who believe their external understanding of womanhood has more validity and understanding than that of those who have lived it every day of our lives?

Indeed, when you assign female only spaces into those for cisgender women only (in theory, since you believe your own failure to imagine such things could be justified is argument enough to deny them in practice) and those for women of both sexes, what does that mean for people like me, who have a female body, no dysphoria, but unlike cis women (meaning here of course only those who actively and informedly identify as cis, not those who have the cis label arbitrarily applied to them by a genderists' need to impose their own assumptions about identity ) don't identify as having a "woman's mind"?

Where do we into your neat scheme?

What justifies your imposing upon us an obligation to share our formerly and intentionally single sex female spaces, identities, rights, protections and opportunities with people with whom.we share neither body sex nor mental gender?

Signalbox · 15/11/2022 20:15

AlisonDonut · 15/11/2022 19:56

No, I am quite happy with the EA2010 which allows transgender people to be excluded from spaces if it's legitimate and proportionate. It usually isn't.

Can you give examples of when you think it would be proportionate?

Good question.... I can't imagine an answer to this question that wouldn't be considered to be transphobic by ideologues.

Happylittlechicken · 15/11/2022 20:09

But what if a person os neither “cis” 🤮🤮 or trans? To say someone is cis requires that they believe in your concept of gender. I’d say most people don’t. So you have those people who are trans, those who believe in gender but are not trans who are ‘cis’ and the rest of us who don’t believe in gender. What are you going to call those people? Are you going to misgender them or try to impose your ideology on them? What is the word for adult human females as a sex class when most of them don’t agree with your ideology?

AlisonDonut · 15/11/2022 19:56

No, I am quite happy with the EA2010 which allows transgender people to be excluded from spaces if it's legitimate and proportionate. It usually isn't.

Can you give examples of when you think it would be proportionate?

DadJoke · 15/11/2022 19:46

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/11/2022 16:05

No one is imposing an identity on anyone else, any more than marriage equality redefined anyone else's marriage. The argument is almost identical.

That is not true.

When the word Woman is changed from a type of physical body to a mental attribute, it labels not just trans women but all people who are called women. It cannot be any other way, because without a shared definition of womanhood that encompasses both sexes, trans women are not women.

It is impossible to define trans women as part of shared womanhood without imposing an identity on all women.

It leaves those of us who are female since birth and do not feel any dysphoria about our bodies, but do not experience womanhood as a mental attribute, with the choice to accept an identity imposed upon us by others to benefit a small group of males, or to be pushed out of womanhood.

And with that, we are pushed out of the support structures that were themselves created specifically to enable female bodied people in male-dominated society, not through any change or new understanding of ourselves, but simply because someone else fancied our name and redefined it without our consent to suit their own purposes.

It is an act of breathtaking arrogance and entitlement.

@Happylittlechicken do I believe all space should be mixed sex?

No, I am quite happy with the EA2010 which allows transgender people to be excluded from spaces if it's legitimate and proportionate. It usually isn't.

Why do you believe transwomen are women but women are not allowed to be referred to as such without obnoxious prefixes?

I don't believe that.

Usually it doesn't matter whether a person is cisgender or transgender except where doctors are involved, but because gender critical people spend so much time differentiating between women who are or are not transgender, it's a useful prefix.

AlisonDonut · 15/11/2022 19:02

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

AlisonDonut · 15/11/2022 18:58

Discovereads · 15/11/2022 16:45

No, but if you’d RTFT and the Eventbrite T&Cs under which the OPs event was published you’d see that any content deemed to be “disparaging” towards an individual or group with a protected characteristic is a violation of their content T&Cs, which can result in them refusing to sell tickets and unpublishing your event. This is in the small print of the section they referenced to her as what she violated. These are the same T&Cs that the OP agreed to. So it in the strict sense (without arguing this is an unenforceable term), Eventbrite could well have viewed the addition of a Lineham to be a breach of the services contract by the OP and so refused their services.

This is what they are going to argue as a defence to the claim their action was discriminatory that the OP intends to file. She (& her solicitor) will have to be prepared to explain & defend the Lineham content as best they can. DadJoke makes a good point.

And a court isn’t going to be interested in arguing the merits of trans versus gender critical, as in who is right. This is a discrimination case with conflict of laws, and contract terms to consider in the mix.

No need to be rude. Do you think individual companies can opt to break the law?

This is all because women believe in the concept of sex. It is ludicrous.

BellaAmorosa · 15/11/2022 18:45

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/11/2022 16:05

No one is imposing an identity on anyone else, any more than marriage equality redefined anyone else's marriage. The argument is almost identical.

That is not true.

When the word Woman is changed from a type of physical body to a mental attribute, it labels not just trans women but all people who are called women. It cannot be any other way, because without a shared definition of womanhood that encompasses both sexes, trans women are not women.

It is impossible to define trans women as part of shared womanhood without imposing an identity on all women.

It leaves those of us who are female since birth and do not feel any dysphoria about our bodies, but do not experience womanhood as a mental attribute, with the choice to accept an identity imposed upon us by others to benefit a small group of males, or to be pushed out of womanhood.

And with that, we are pushed out of the support structures that were themselves created specifically to enable female bodied people in male-dominated society, not through any change or new understanding of ourselves, but simply because someone else fancied our name and redefined it without our consent to suit their own purposes.

It is an act of breathtaking arrogance and entitlement.

🙌🙌

Spero · 15/11/2022 18:35

WomenShouldWinWomensSports · 14/11/2022 19:32

Where will the book be available when it releases OP? Hope this isn’t too off-topic but I would very much like to buy a hardcopy when it’s out.

I have seen the proof copy and it looks amazing! It will out by December 2 so that's Christmas sorted!

OP posts:
Spero · 15/11/2022 18:33

I was suspended 'permanently' from Twitter for saying 'I know who he is'. They reinstated me without comment after I got solicitors to write to them. So either they made a mistake in banning me, or a mistake in re-instating me. Either way, to put any reliance on Twitter's 'moderation' policy as some kind of gospel truth as @DadJoke does, is risible.

I have spoken to my solicitor whose preliminary view is that the Equality Act does apply under the EU opt out clause and I have a few days left to decide if I want to opt out of arbitration or not. I am not that fussed, arbitration would at least be cheaper but I might not be able to live tweet the proceedings!

OP posts:
Apollo442 · 15/11/2022 17:51

Is this now gospel, that Lineham is a hateful figure? I have seen no coherent evidence of this. His banning from Twitter was complaints from ideologues and enforced by sympatheic TRA moderators. Nothing you can hang your hat on, certainly not a court of law. No better than hearsay and not something that I think needs to be defended.

Discovereads · 15/11/2022 16:51

The point of the thread is no, platforms don't get to decide their own conditions, if they violate the laws of the land.

Good sum up. But obviously, that’s an allegation that Eventbrite will defend itself against. And it would be seriously naive not to consider what sort of defences they have to argue to say they were not being discriminatory towards the OP. These range from arguing US & CA law apply per the express terms of the contract to they were applying their T&Cs in accordance with their procedures and in a fair and consitent manner. The addition of Lineham to the event announcement makes the OPs case a little harder to argue. And it would be wise to have an explanation or defence or precedent because his reputation and bans for hateful conduct will be an item of discussion.

Discovereads · 15/11/2022 16:45

AlisonDonut · 14/11/2022 18:24

As far as I rember it isn't illegal to be disparaging is it?

Twitter isn't a court of law either is it?

I was once banned for posting someones own tweet at them. It is a fucking mental place.

No, but if you’d RTFT and the Eventbrite T&Cs under which the OPs event was published you’d see that any content deemed to be “disparaging” towards an individual or group with a protected characteristic is a violation of their content T&Cs, which can result in them refusing to sell tickets and unpublishing your event. This is in the small print of the section they referenced to her as what she violated. These are the same T&Cs that the OP agreed to. So it in the strict sense (without arguing this is an unenforceable term), Eventbrite could well have viewed the addition of a Lineham to be a breach of the services contract by the OP and so refused their services.

This is what they are going to argue as a defence to the claim their action was discriminatory that the OP intends to file. She (& her solicitor) will have to be prepared to explain & defend the Lineham content as best they can. DadJoke makes a good point.

And a court isn’t going to be interested in arguing the merits of trans versus gender critical, as in who is right. This is a discrimination case with conflict of laws, and contract terms to consider in the mix.

Happylittlechicken · 15/11/2022 16:11

What @FlirtsWithRhinos said very eloquently. Any comment @DadJoke ? Can you see how defining woman to include males will affect women or are you still confused.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 15/11/2022 16:05

No one is imposing an identity on anyone else, any more than marriage equality redefined anyone else's marriage. The argument is almost identical.

That is not true.

When the word Woman is changed from a type of physical body to a mental attribute, it labels not just trans women but all people who are called women. It cannot be any other way, because without a shared definition of womanhood that encompasses both sexes, trans women are not women.

It is impossible to define trans women as part of shared womanhood without imposing an identity on all women.

It leaves those of us who are female since birth and do not feel any dysphoria about our bodies, but do not experience womanhood as a mental attribute, with the choice to accept an identity imposed upon us by others to benefit a small group of males, or to be pushed out of womanhood.

And with that, we are pushed out of the support structures that were themselves created specifically to enable female bodied people in male-dominated society, not through any change or new understanding of ourselves, but simply because someone else fancied our name and redefined it without our consent to suit their own purposes.

It is an act of breathtaking arrogance and entitlement.

TinFoilHatty · 15/11/2022 15:55

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 15/11/2022 15:50

BTW marriage is something you do. Being a woman is something I am. Not remotely comparable.

Chaz you really do have a way with words, pithy and concise, filleting your thoughts and ideas as though with a very sharp knife. [hearteyes]

Happylittlechicken · 15/11/2022 15:55

@DadJoke do you believe all spaces should be mixed sex? Why do you believe women are not entitled to single sex spaces for privacy, dignity and safety? Why do you believe transwomen are women but women are not allowed to be referred to as such without obnoxious prefixes?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 15/11/2022 15:50

BTW marriage is something you do. Being a woman is something I am. Not remotely comparable.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 15/11/2022 15:49

If you change the meaning of woman away from adult human female you are absolutely imposing an identity on me that I don’t want or recognise.
If you call me cis you are absolutely imposing an identity on me I don’t want or recognise.

It is deeply offensive that a small subset of males have taken it upon themselves to try to redefine my identity to suit themselves.

It is a grotesque and inexcusable misgendering.

DadJoke · 15/11/2022 15:35

I dunno, platforming a misogynist who has admitted to sending dick pics to people on this forum seems a step too far, even for gender critical devotees.

No one is imposing an identity on anyone else, any more than marriage equality redefined anyone else's marriage. The argument is almost identical.

It's entirely possible to hold beliefs which are hateful and directed against people with protected characteristics and yet legal. Some religious people think gay people will go to hell. That doesn't mean a supplier can't refuse to platform them if they think it disparages gay people. The same applies to gender critical beliefs.

Rightsraptor · 14/11/2022 20:32

I hope the book is out in time for Christmas. There's a thread on here about GC Christmas presents and this book could be one.

FunnyTalks · 14/11/2022 20:30

FlirtsWithRhinos · 14/11/2022 19:09

Misgendering people is considered disparaging in most cases even here.

Interesting. I consider the unilateral redefinition of "woman" to benefit the needs/preferences of a small group of males, thereby redefining the basis on which almost all female people understand themselves as women and imposing upon them a "womanhood" which is mental instead of physiological regardless of what they themselves may think about the matter and regardless of whether they do in fact identify in that way, as an act of "misgendering" which is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope, so far beyond the use of pronouns that are not to one's taste that they are barely in the same frame of reference.

Hopefully you agree and will add your voice in support of the increasing numbers of female people who are saying no to this identity being imposed upon them.

Brilliantly put.

WomenShouldWinWomensSports · 14/11/2022 19:32

Where will the book be available when it releases OP? Hope this isn’t too off-topic but I would very much like to buy a hardcopy when it’s out.