AIBU to think Maya scored a victory for common sense today?

[DancesWithTortoises]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096?s=20

news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249

The law just cannot be allowed to tell people what to think.

Hurrah for Maya!

What a brave woman. I'm hoping this is the beginning of a bit of a readjustment...

@katrina11
This case was about having the right to hold gender critical beliefs without harassment or discrimination.

Everyone who holds a protected belief is required to manifest that belief in a way that does not harass or discriminate against others.

So forcing someone to state their pronouns might be harassment if they are gender critical; failing to use preferred pronouns might be harassment if someone is trans.

However holding a belief in biology is not an act of discrimination.

I am sorry about your bad news @LadyFidgetAndHerHandbag. I hope you have plenty of support.

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@LadyFidgetAndHerHandbag you are allowed to believe that transwomen are women. Others now are also allowed to say that whilst they respect a person's right to present in a way that makes them feel must comfortable in their own skin, that does not mean they believe that by so presenting, it makes them women as one who is born biologically as a woman.

Just as I don't believe that the wafer and wine in the catholic faith are ACTUALLY the body and blood of Christ (nor do I believe in God at all in fact) But I recognise your right to do so.

Stating material reality that sex is real, binary and matters is not transphobic but if you choose to believe that Transwomen are women, that is your right. There are also people who believe the earth is flat. I also disagree but recognise that they are allowed to believe that.

Does that help? [/quote]

👏👏👏👏👏

people should read the actual judgement - and particularly the bit where so called 'gender-critical' people are not free to behave in a discriminatory manner.

Strewth. This wasn't about giving license to women to be negatively discriminatory. This was about stopping the discrimination towards women when they talk about their gender critical views. This is about not being able to be fired because of them. It is about making it wrong to stop women meeting, threatening them, telling their workplace that they hold the wrong views.

This is about calling women transphobic bigots, for holding a viewpoint, that is not only commonplace, but it is backed up by the other protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.

Talk about getting things back to front.

@Helleofabore

Maybe this English Rugby definition that would have been influenced by Stonewall would be a good place to start. Stonewall have provided a great deal of support to that organisation to shape their policies.

'Female: a person who does not produce male levels of testosterone at puberty and adolescence'
England Rugby.

So basically, female is anyone who isn't male enough?

Wheres the common ground though? I asked upthread and I don’t think anyone answered yet, what overlap would you be happy with?

I can only speak for myself but I’m reasonably comfortable with the law as it currently stands. The processes involved in getting a GRC appear neither onerous nor expensive but seem to deter the most opportunistic and the majority of those who would seek to abuse the process. However, I can’t speak for other women who would be uncomfortable with the status quo remaining. The middle ground IMO is in all sides listening to their concerns and seeking ways to alleviate them, perhaps through the provision of additional facilities for transwomen, rather than in allowing them access to women’s spaces.

@WallaceinAnderland

And not only that but has always been a woman.

I've often wondered about this re sports. If transwomen cyclists, for example, can have their victory recorded as a female record, what about Caitlyn Jenner. Was the decathlon gold medal won by a man or a woman and if it was a woman did she beat all the men?

I've seen a similar hypothetical question asked about politicians. If an ex-US president transitioned, given they've all been male to date, would we have to re-write the history books to say that person was the first female president? I'd hope not.

@SunnyintheSun

If gender critical is a protected belief, is it now ok to state on MN that I believe trans women are trans women, sex can’t be changed and woman = adult human female?

🙌

Also I particularly like this bit where her views are compared to Christian homophobes

If it makes you happy to imply that a person believing in proven science that sex cannot be changed even with a GRC is 'just as' someone who believes in their narrow view of the definition of marriage (which, by the way Stonewall had issues with too) that is great.

Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.'

If you find proven science offensive, if you prefer to believe in a science that is detached from reality, perhaps it says more about you than Maya Forstater.

Absolutely. It's scary how close we came to this being a possibility (not being able to say sex is real, binary and matters). Thank you to the women who are braver than me, who stood up and who stopped this happening. Maya, your views are worthy of respect

THIS - absolutely!

@JeanClaudeVanDammit

Wheres the common ground though? I asked upthread and I don’t think anyone answered yet, what overlap would you be happy with?

I can only speak for myself but I’m reasonably comfortable with the law as it currently stands. The processes involved in getting a GRC appear neither onerous nor expensive but seem to deter the most opportunistic and the majority of those who would seek to abuse the process. However, I can’t speak for other women who would be uncomfortable with the status quo remaining. The middle ground IMO is in all sides listening to their concerns and seeking ways to alleviate them, perhaps through the provision of additional facilities for transwomen, rather than in allowing them access to women’s spaces.

And the language? People who menstruate and so on?

Re: common ground, I think the sticking point is Gender Identity Ideology, rather than trans women (who have a range of beliefs).

The original driver of the GRA was the right to privacy. However, Gender identity ideology proposes that there is an additional right to have personal beliefs about gender identity affirmed. As discussed in the judgement, people have a right not to believe.

I think gender identity ideology works against protection of women and trans people, because it refuses to accept that objective definitions (that necessarily exclude) can exist for either.

people should read the actual judgement - and particularly the bit where so called 'gender-critical' people are not free to behave in a discriminatory manner.

Yes. Interesting that a judge had to repeat (twice in the judgement) in careful detail, that female people believing in biology does not mean that discrimination will be unleashed, and reminded (as has been often said here) that the grey area where the need to speak factually even if the hearer does not want to hear it, and becoming harassment is already catered for in law and will work just fine.

The reassurance is very clear and repeated, to ensure that catastrophising and black and white thinking cannot be fallen into. It seems obvious to me that the judge was trying to avert the inevitable reaction that was already all over social media about 'to let them say anything all equates to flat out discrimination'. Very helpful of the judge to deal with that up front.

CandyLeBonBon

That is one way to look at it, yes. Interesting isn't it? That women are reduced to 'not male' and male is the default setting for humans as usual. Same old, same old. Welcome to 2021. I think that definition was from last month.

@Avocadowoman

'Trans women aren't women' isn't transphobic in the same way as saying 'a five year old isn't an adult' isn't ageist.

Or 'A blind person does not have full vision' is not disablist.

Precisely. It's just fact.

And this:

Stating material reality that sex is real, binary and matters is not transphobic but if you choose to believe that Transwomen are women, that is your right. There are also people who believe the earth is flat. I also disagree but recognise that they are allowed to believe that

@katrina11

perhaps instead of just reading Sky news people should read the actual judgement - and particularly the bit where so called 'gender-critical' people are not free to behave in a discriminatory manner. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Also I particularly like this bit where her views are compared to Christian homophobes '
Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender
“for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may
well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.'

you mean 'unlawfully discriminatory'.

The EA allows lawful discrimination. It's the reason why I can be refused a young person's railcard.

YANBU - but it is great that she won 🥇

I wish commonsense worked across the board. For example, if I see a man going into a woman's loo and him not to, can I be accused of discrimination if he's wearing a dress or simply says he's a woman?
Commonsense says no, but a minority group could try to destroy my life if it was in the media.

@Datun

people should read the actual judgement - and particularly the bit where so called 'gender-critical' people are not free to behave in a discriminatory manner.

Strewth. This wasn't about giving license to women to be negatively discriminatory. This was about stopping the discrimination towards women when they talk about their gender critical views. This is about not being able to be fired because of them. It is about making it wrong to stop women meeting, threatening them, telling their workplace that they hold the wrong views.

This is about calling women transphobic bigots, for holding a viewpoint, that is not only commonplace, but it is backed up by the other protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.

Talk about getting things back to front.

So what actions can now be taken against people who:

• contact someone's employer because they're GC, or dox them

• use any or all of the tactics we've seen in the last few years, to try to prevent women meeting together, or to render such meetings unworkable

• address people in the wrong way, whether that's by calling them 'cis' when they've been told not to, or deliberately misgendering them

• call people 'bigot' or 'transphobe' for holding a protected belief (is there a legal definition of either of those terms?)

Does the law protect everyone equally now? Are private companies entitled to treat users differently according to their protected beliefs? Can the police choose whom to protect & whom to prosecute, over protected beliefs?

I’m in the US so I’m just catching up. Great news for GC women, I’m in awe of Maya!

@Helleofabore

Maybe this English Rugby definition that would have been influenced by Stonewall would be a good place to start. Stonewall have provided a great deal of support to that organisation to shape their policies.

'Female: a person who does not produce male levels of testosterone at puberty and adolescence'
England Rugby.

Ah, back to 'women are just non-men', I see!

@FlowerArranger

And this:

Stating material reality that sex is real, binary and matters is not transphobic but if you choose to believe that Transwomen are women, that is your right. There are also people who believe the earth is flat. I also disagree but recognise that they are allowed to believe that

Yes.

Good news for all of us, and it must be a huge relief to Maya and her team after years of having to fight for her right to speak.

Meanwhile Marion Millar awaits trial in Scotland for tweeting her standard feminist views. She also posted a picture of ribbons in the suffragette colours, fluttering gaily in the breeze, which someone complained was threatening because they could be taken as looking like a noose. Shocking stuff, I know.

While Marion awaits trial she's received the usual tonnage of genuine threats, but I don't expect anyone will be charged for just, you know, threatening violence against a woman.
lilymaynard.com/the-curious-case-of-marion-millar/

Let's hope that recent victories are a sign that sanity is being reasserted, and that Marion walks free -- preferably with hefty compensation.