To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

I don't think that, as the law stands, a GRC can create the fiction that somebody has no sex or that their sex is fluid.

No, it can't. Apologies, I was speaking in general terms, not in relation to this particular case, where the individuals "offended" claim to be non-binary and gender fluid. Those individuals would not have a GRC. It's worth noting, though, that there were political parties in the recent election that made a manifesto commitment to recognise non-binary as a category for the purposes of GRA reform.

The key point is whether or not Maya’s GC views qualify as a protected belief under equalities law. The judgement found that they do not.

Then why did the judgement talk about genes that can be turned on and off and intersex conditions?

The judgement is an appalling document. It is littered with spelling mistakes, irrelevancies (such as intersex, which has no bearing on trans), and outright misrepresentations of what Maya said in court.

Not only are men keeping their jobs there are more excuses than ever before for their attitudes towards women. They even literally get away with murder because "rough sex". Economically the excuse is that fulltime workers are cheaper, and can get more done. It's been disproved elsewhere. As always, they ignore the extra work women do as - well, just because women do it it can be ignored.

YANBU op. JKR is correct, and brave, but also the correct type of person to speak up imho as she’s not dependent on employers refuting her right to say facts.

However I’m not sold that I’m understanding the judgement. Presumably if Maya’s (all sensible women’s) belief that TWANW is a belief that harms others rights, then anyone posting TWAW is harming women (which it is in this social scale gas lighting). Presumably if her employers didn’t continue her contract because she stated TWANW, then they instead chose someone who is happy to spout TWAW publicly, which means they are fine with beliefs that harm other protected groups as long as it’s the beliefs they agree with?

Also- the poster saying protecting Maya’s (all sensible women’s) belief would be akin to protecting homophobia- hatred is not a belief. This is a stupid point. People may perhaps hold religious beliefs that are against same sex marriage - look at plenty of mps- this belief is allowed, is legally protected, as is their right to free speech about it. If they start saying we need to cull gay people, that they are a perversion, refusing to employ them based on that then it’s harmful to others rights, but saying they don’t agree with gay marriage is legally allowed, even if I don’t like it. Equally if Maya was saying trans people don’t deserve rights, we should get rid of them, and/or refusing to employ them etc then her belief (in fucking science and a protected characteristic under the EA) would be harming others rights, none of what she said did that.

I can’t see how the judge yabbering on about intersex conditions has any place in the judgement, I can’t see how this shouldn’t be fought and appealed and taken to a judge who can understand basic concepts not someone who either doesn’t understand intersex and trans are two different things (and it’s highly offensive to co-opt the experience of those who are intersex) or who doesn’t use this bs to try and gas light people.

To poster saying they are bisexual and non binary- ‘bi’ sexual means attracted to both sexes, so means recognising there are two distinct separate sexes, which is entirely incompatible with claiming to be non binary.

YANBU.

There's been a lot of misinformation about Maya (or, as we used to say, outright lies). She did not harass colleagues. She explicitly said she would use chosen pronouns out of courtesy.

The judgement is an interesting (if complicated and in places muddled) read. Radio 4's today programme interviewed a barrister yesterday morning (one who specialised in equality and diversity, and incidentally is sympathetic to the trans cause) and he said he could see several places where he thought Maya would have grounds for appeal.

In my (layperson's) opinion, not least among these is the fact that the judge seemed muddled about the specific exemptions for certain single-sex provisions described explicitly and allowed for in the 2010 Equalities Act.

Well done JK for standing up for Maya.

And how interesting that such a measured, compassionate tweet (everyone should be able to live their best life, but biological sex is what it is) should bring out such a huge wave of horrible responses.

And how interesting that there is such clear evidence of Twitter being gamed and manipulated ("likes" disappearing, pro-science denial tweets being boosted while supportive replies are suppressed).

TheSeaweed

YANBU. JK ROWLING Was good for stating the obvious.

Well done JK
I can’t believe we are beholden to such a tiny minority group. It’s a shame that other minority groups have not had such meteoric success.
A man who has had his penis amputated is a man with no penis. Whether accidentally ( due to trauma) or intentionally (due to disease or at mans request) he is still a man. There are probably a significant number of men who have had their penis’s removed who still consider themselves men. Those who request it are suffering from body dysmorphia.
I have followed these threads for a long time, my main concern is that time and time again trans individuals talk about about feeling like a woman/man. I have been a woman for 55 yrs I am a biological heterosexual woman and I cannot explain how it feels being a woman so how does anyone know that they feel like a woman when they are biologically male. Yes they may not feel the way they think they should but how do they know that they are not feeling like a dog or a cat or a bloody bluebottle. As a biological woman I have an innate sense of the true sexual identity of the person stood in front of me however they present themselves. It’s a sense that all animals have and vital for procreation, we are just less aware of it so no longer identify it. So to all trans men, you might look like a woman, dress like a woman and “feel” like a woman, I’ll let you into our big secret we know you are really a man.
Professionally I have to see patients of all genders but sex does matter medically. It is important during diagnosis, screening etc. Unfortunately the trans patients I have seen have far more problems than just gender identity. Their choice of identity has only compounded their underlying mental health problems and with everyone of them it is crystal clear why they have chosen to disassociate themselves from their biological sex.
Just to make it crystal clear I have no problem with anyone identifying as a different gender but to use it against the said gender is just not on.

I don't think that, as the law stands, a GRC can create the fiction that somebody has no sex or that their sex is fluid.

This is a good point. If the Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be kept because it reflects how society has changed, then it's currently inadequate and it should be amended so that people can have on their birth certificate that they don't have a sex at all.

Once that's done it opens the question whether instead of M or F for sex, a person's birth certificate should have one (or more) of the many genders: www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all.

Whatthings, that's a useful one-page summary. It highlights that the reason that Maya lost is that her view that men can't become women is not a view that is worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The judgement concluded that because one part of Maya's view is that a man doesn't become a woman even with a Gender Recognition Certificate, whereas it is a matter of law that this is the case.

In other words, you are not protected by law if you say a man cannot become a woman.

I can see how the legal reasoning works, step by step, but I still think that it ends up in a perverse outcome.

The key point is whether or not Maya’s GC views qualify as a protected belief under equalities law. The judgement found that they do not.

Was that not because Maya's gender critical belief was found to be disrespectful, or intimidating or humiliating (I can't member the exact words) to transpeople?

Might that be construed as a judgement call? Because, presumably, the converse is true that women will feel all those things, and they, too have an equal protected characteristic.

When the criteria was read out that Maya had to meet with her 'belief', most people would absolutely think it met all of it. It's only because a certain section of society, who have a protected characteristic, now find that offensive.

Why isn't the converse true, for women?

Didn't the judge decide that one cohort with a protected characteristic trumps another?

WhatThings I think a lot of people who agree with JK do understand it. (I'd argue that the people misrepresenting JK to justify calling her a TERF, also understand it although they're pretending they don't).

The conflation between sex and gender is key to the dispute and the clause from the GRA quoted in the short summary you linked, falls into that discussion. Sections of the GRA use 'sex' when they mean the box to input sex ie they acknowledge it's a change in paperwork. It does not use 'sex' to mean chromosomes; skeleton, etc. They do not mean (or believe) that changing paperwork changes someone's physical body. If you can find a transubstantiation clause in the GRA then please do share.

Maya's argument was about biology and science.

Although, here, you would get a measured response

I agree, the vast majority of responses here are measured and reasonable, but there are some saying that YABU voters are 'trolls' and 'MRAs' and I don't want that sort of person following me from thread to thread because I've disagreed (I hope) in a measured way with the majority.

In response to questions of how views on biological facts can form part of an organisation's ethics - it's really a question of belief rather than fact. The belief in God forms part of the Church of England's ethics, for example - I imagine if a member of the clergy disavowed that belief, they would be removed from post - even though there is no factual evidence for the existence of God.

Please note, I am not posting from a position of supporting the view that biological sex can change. I'm posting from a position of an employer's right to dismiss employees who make it publicly known that they don't agree with their employer's stance on a moral issue (in this case, avoidance of misgendering).

DH shares a publisher with JKR. He has a meeting with his editor coming up. I'll be sending him with a written statement of support for JKR to be read out in the meeting (DH is also GC so is on board with this!).

Oh, well done Seaweed and MrSeaweed!

Biblio I think the criteria, which come from caselaw, don't allow for a situation where there are conflicting rights, it assumes that only one "side" causes detriment to the other, e.g. racism, or where a belief doesn't really impact an individual, e.g. veganism. It's only able to assess whether it's conflicting with trans people's rights and not able to look at whether trans rights conflict with women's rights. This is what's led to the perverse decision.

But maya said she would not misgender.

The government, and now the Scottish government are expecting people to consult about the gender recognition act. They're expecting them to talk about the issue.

How can you do that, if you could be fired for it? How can you talk about cross dressing fetishists who want a gender recognition certificate, and why they're not women, when you could get fired for it?

Whatthingsexactly, the judgement claims that belief in sex is

incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.

But the GRA 2004 does not recognise that somebody can fully change sex and recognises many exceptions.

I could go through the process to get a GRC, but I would not be able to obtain any of the privileges of being born male because it's not possible to change sex. Notably in the UK I would not be able to inherit any property or titles (including those that would give access to the House of Lords) if they pass down the male line.

With extensive very expensive surgery and drugs I might be able to 'pass', but that is all. This matters. If you pretend that people can easily move into and out of oppressed groups, equality law is meaningless. However, the GRA and the Equality Act give specific instances of cases where discrimination on the basis of birth sex, not acquired sex or gender is legal.

It's also notable that the two people MF is accused of misgendering do not appear to meet the criteria for obtaining a GRC as both spend a substantial amount of time presenting as their biological sex.

Maya Forstater isn't randomly talking about this issue, she is talking about the protection of sex based rights and proposed changes to legislation.

I read the article you recommended, but I'm afraid the only bit I can agree with is the bit where he says "I am no expert on gender identity and how it relates to biological sex "

I'm glad JKR sent this tweet and she is right.

The thing that baffles me about TRAs and other extremist groups is the fact that Freedom of Speech is only valid for them and their arguments, as soon as someone goes against what they think or has a different opinion they are shouted down.

Sorry, but their feels are not more important than anyone else's.

Didn't the judge decide that one cohort with a protected characteristic trumps another?

Not exactly (see my post above), I think it's because caselaw only enabled it to look at the problem from one direction.

I agree with JK too.

Really proud of her 💪🏼⭐️

what confuses me the most is why there are men that claim to feel that they are really women while also hating biological women.
It doesn't really makes sense does it?
I have read book written by a trans-female in which I could feel the dislike of women. It confuses me and makes me doubt that they do really feel like a woman.

My biology helps me to feel like a woman, periods, childbirth, menopause these experiences underline to me that I am female.
I certainly cannot prevent any of these by wishing them away.

@Whatthingsexactly

Yes, agree the judgment is an interesting read on quite a technical but important point - ie whether Forstater's views amounted to a [religious or] philosophical belief and therefore protected. With the tribunal finding that they did not .

Also - which I hadn't realised before reading the judgement -this wasn't an unfair dismissal case as Forstater wasn't an employee. Forstater was alleging direct discrimination against her because of her 'philosophical belief' and that this was the reason her consultancy application wasn't proceeded with or renewed.

Massive respect to JKR and Maya

Yes, Everard, that makes sense. The need to clarify the situation when rights conflict should mean that there is legitimate scope for a legal challenge.