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’

EverardDigby

Isn't it the same thing? He decided that trans people would be offended on the basis of acknowledging sex, but not that women would be offended on the basis of not acknowledging it.

I'm guessing he's allowed to just see this in one direction only. But in that case, you could go back and forth all day, with new people, each putting their protected characteristic on the table, forever.

Furthermore, he evidently was only taking one side into account. He clearly didn't think there was another cohort to accommodate.

So, whilst, to the letter of the law, maya may still not win an appeal. I'm hoping that this will facilitate law reform across the board.

Datun thanks for saying what I was trying to more articulately. If Maya saying TWANW is harmful to others rights then anyone stating TWAW is equally harmful. If her employers chose to discontinue her contract based on this then presumably they employed someone who beliefs TWAW, which means they’ve prioritised one harmful belief over another.

While I hate the TWAW rhetoric I do think people have the right to free speech. Like I said I don’t like that people don’t agree with gay marriage but I think they should be allowed to say so, that’s not hate speech, it’s not inciting violence or hatred and so on. I’d rather we know about others ignorant views so we can appropriately challenge them, educate them, and know the reality of the world we live in. Silencing free speech leaves us in a very scary reality altogether, a lot like trying to navigate total darkness with no night vision.

VMisaMarshmallow

Because it's so illogical, and you are forcing something that's impossible, it's an absolute mindfuck.

I'm just glad it's getting some airing and exposure. It's bad law and needs changing.

But maya said she would not misgender.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt to conflate misgendering with recognising somebody's real sex.

We are supposed to be reassured that self ID wouldn't be misused because nobody would lie on a sworn declaration. However if talking about sex is "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others", what language is available to express the idea that somebody is abusing the legislation?

How would somebody working for the prison service express the reasons why Karen White shouldn't be in a female prison?

But maya said she would not misgender.

Not according to the judgement. She said 'I reserve the right to use the pronouns 'he' and 'him' to refer to male people'. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy ...'

That isn't saying she wouldn't misgender. That's saying she reserves the right to misgender if she wants to, and she may choose not to.

Self ID is not a good idea for anyone and I believe the Tories' original plans to bring it in are now (rightly) on hold.

I agree with the comment above that we need to allow free speech. As long as peoplea are not saying I will cut off the heads of Broish Johnson or Corbyn or all gays or all women or all men but instead of just expressing a view eg saying gays will burn in hell or gay marriage should be remvoed from the law or the ban on hunting or breeding animals for fur is wrong or whatever. We need to live in a society where a range of views are permitted.

A radical intersectionalist viewpoint

Datun

These are the five tests - Maya passed all except for number 5:

1. The belief must be genuinely held
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Whether TRAs beliefs conflict with the rights of others is irrelevant in the eyes of the law - the problem is the criteria were not designed to take into account this situation where two parties can potentially be disadvantaged by the rights of others. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know to what extent these criteria can be superseded - they are not in the original legislation but in case law intended to clarify it, but it's not fit for purpose in this situation.

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 .

The important point is why Forstater's views did not amount to a religious or philosophical belief, and that doesn't make sense.

I can think of plenty of religious beliefs that don't seem to meet the bar that has been set for Forstater's belief that sex exists.

Well done JK.

Sex is binary. Your DNA is either male or female. Gender is a social construct and I have every sympathy for people who don’t want to have to act or dress in a way that conforms to regressive stereotypes. Nor do I have a problem with the legal fiction conferred by a gender recognition certificate (after investigation to make sure the application is genuine) But that doesn’t literally make you the opposite sex. That’s just an objective fact. It should not even be something we are debating.

It’s terrible that stating objective facts become a free speech issue. But is has and freedom of speech is vital for a functioning democracy

I hope this is decision is challenged.

I love JK Rowling. She knew exactly what she was doing and gives no fucks.

She said 'I reserve the right to use the pronouns 'he' and 'him' to refer to male people'. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy ...'

I think she said this because there has been at least one case where the victim in a rape case has been forced to refer to their attacker as a woman. Surely it's possible to understand the kind of person who would use pronouns and claimed gender identity as a way of exerting power?

As I understand it, Merry, it's about a specific set of criteria in law called the "Grainger" criteria - it's not about whether Maya's views constitute a lay-person's understanding of "belief" but whether they meet the standard required for a belief that meets the standards such that the believer is protected from discrimination under law for holding that belief.

So for example, someone could not be sacked from McDonalds for expressing the belief that "Jesus Christ is the only risen Lord" on their social media feed, but could (presumably after the relevant disciplinary procedures) be sacked for expressing the belief that "McDonald's burgers taste of shit" on their social media feed.

Four out of five criteria were met, but in the judge's opinion, one was not, specifically the criterion that for a belief to be protected, it mustn't impinge on the dignity of other people.

This, in the judge's view, put Maya's belief that sexual dimorphism is biologically established fact (or as near to as science is capable of delivering) into the "McDonald's burgers taste like shit" category rather than the "Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord" category.

Batshit crazy, IMO, but that as I understand it is where the legal basis came from. Whether it can successfully be appealed is another matter (having read the judgement, I'd say there's quite a few places where you could mount an appeal).

"sex is real"

It's a simple fact.
#IStandWithMaya

Thanks EverardDigby

5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Where is it written that trans people have the fundamental right to not have their sex acknowledged? It can't be the gender recognition certificate, because it acknowledges that there are exemptions even to that.

Thanks for your patience btw. This case, more than any other is really complicated, to my mind. Because it's relying on nonsensical concepts.

Re. rape cases - I don't think there's a documented case of this having happened. Maria MacLachlan (victim of assault, perpetrator found guilty) was instructed by the judge to use female pronouns for her attacker during the trial, and the judge lessened the sentence because of the trauma Maria's accidental misgendering during giving evidence had caused her attacker (even the defendant's own lawyers couldn't keep things straight).

It was pointed out after this case that in principle that opened the way to a woman being forced to use female pronouns for her alleged rapist while giving evidence in a rape trial, but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't actually happened. Yet.

Furthermore if acknowledging biological sex is against the right of somebody, it's the right that has to change.

Otherwise, you will be taking millions of people to court - every doctor, every biologist, etc.

merrymouse

If Maya is reserving a misgendering exemption for one very specific set of circumstances, why would she not specify that? It's a situation with which others would be more likely to sympathise.

''I reserve the right [to misgender]' as a statement without qualification, which is in fact the statement Maya has made, is offensive; I think, justifiably so.

There seems to be some special pleading creeping into many of the arguments in support of Maya.

It was pointed out after this case that in principle that opened the way to a woman being forced to use female pronouns for her alleged rapist while giving evidence in a rape trial, but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't actually happened. Yet.

I may be wrong, but I think that court guidelines were revised after this case to state that an individual's chosen pronouns must be respected. Presumably that would include a rapist being able to insist that his pronouns are feminine.

There seems to be some special pleading creeping into many of the arguments in support of Maya.

You are at liberty to interpret it that way.

I, on the other hand, think it's more than clear that there's some serious misrepresentation, in fact outright lying, going on in the portrayal of Maya's views in order to paint her as some sort of monster, thereby removing women's rights to engage in political discussion without the threat of losing their livelihood as a result.

Four out of five criteria were met, but in the judge's opinion, one was not, specifically the criterion that for a belief to be protected, it mustn't impinge on the dignity of other people
This is really interesting, and seems like it could affect other beliefs. An employer who wouldn't allow a collection for a (same sex) wedding, for example, or a colleague who shakes hand with every prospective client except the female ones. I would have thought these might have been covered under religion and belief, but they certainly impinge on the dignity of other people so (according to this verdict) they would not be.

I agree with her YANBU

Nunsnetting would most of us not wish to "reverse the right to misgender" when talking about people such as the rapist Karen White? Should a discussion of his crimes require us all to say her crimes?

I agree.

Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. this made me laugh though!