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!

Yes death threats against women are deplorable but we shouldn't let the actions of a minority affect our judgement and humanity

@TheWordWomanIsTaken and what would that look like?

Personally I don't really care if people say "people who menstruate" BUT I don't think that people should be pulled up if they use women or female - they are biologically accurate. It's not a hate crime. Is that the compromise?

@midgedude

Erm

Clearly trans people exist .. no one Denys that do they ?

Woman or woman and transmen I think covers most cases politely and respectfully

Great! So that’s your middle ground?

@whatsthescoregeorgedoors

Personally I don't really care if people say "people who menstruate" BUT I don't think that people should be pulled up if they use women or female - they are biologically accurate. It's not a hate crime. Is that the compromise?

I’d say so!

Absolutely... back to the subject - Finally common sense, thank you Maya, we are with you.

Post quote fail, I was posting in support of the poster who said that women don’t need to find an overlap, men do.

My understanding is Maya tweeted about biological sex under ‘transwomen are not women’ or similar and was sacked for it. She sued her employer, and won, because (aside from biological fact) that’s her belief and it couldn’t be shown to harm others. Which is absolutely as it should be.

Not quite.

It was an appeal against a preliminary hearing in which a judge said that gender critical beliefs were not protected under the EA because they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Today's ruling overturned that and the judge said gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society and so are protected.

Maya always acknowledged that a belief in gender identity was a protected belief, so there was no need to rule on that.

Today's judgment also confirmed that a lack of belief in gender identity, and a lack of gender critical belief, are also both protected.

So there's your 'middle ground', if you must - both beliefs and both lack-of-beliefs are protected.

Maya has not yet won her case against her employer. She will next have to show that the employer unlawfully discriminated against her because of her protected belief. She may decide she's had enough though and doesn't want to pursue her employer further. Even if she did, this important legal precedent will remain.

So where is this middle ground where we can’t even lob them one tweet every so often saying ‘people who menstruate’ or similar?

This is just weird.

@LangClegsInSpace

My understanding is Maya tweeted about biological sex under ‘transwomen are not women’ or similar and was sacked for it. She sued her employer, and won, because (aside from biological fact) that’s her belief and it couldn’t be shown to harm others. Which is absolutely as it should be.

Not quite.

It was an appeal against a preliminary hearing in which a judge said that gender critical beliefs were not protected under the EA because they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Today's ruling overturned that and the judge said gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society and so are protected.

Maya always acknowledged that a belief in gender identity was a protected belief, so there was no need to rule on that.

Today's judgment also confirmed that a lack of belief in gender identity, and a lack of gender critical belief, are also both protected.

So there's your 'middle ground', if you must - both beliefs and both lack-of-beliefs are protected.

Maya has not yet won her case against her employer. She will next have to show that the employer unlawfully discriminated against her because of her protected belief. She may decide she's had enough though and doesn't want to pursue her employer further. Even if she did, this important legal precedent will remain.

So where is this middle ground where we can’t even lob them one tweet every so often saying ‘people who menstruate’ or similar?

This is just weird.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

How is it just weird?

[quote Pumperthepumper]@TheWordWomanIsTaken and what would that look like?[/quote]
That means that men can find the middle ground.
Obviously
Not sure why you keep asking - it is very clear.
This is not a problem for women to sort out.

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 not a lawyer ifIwerenotanandroid, but I imagine people have the same recourse as if they are discriminated against on, say, the basis of sex.

I don't know at what point, if any, it tips over into criminal law.

But I don't think, for example, that you can now prevent women meeting, to discuss this protected belief. As was happening before Covid put paid to public meetings.

@TheWordWomanIsTaken ok.

It should be noted that some people born female who identify as non-binary or as men also dislike language like menstruator or cervix-haver.

Person 1, he/him

Really need afab as a term to not be abandoned so I don't have to deal w people calling me a womb haver or menstrator in the context of reproductive healthcare/rights

Person 2

At this point I'd rather you just misgender me and call me a woman than call me a fucking "menstrator" or "uterus haver"

It's not inclusive imo, it's dehumanizing and reduces me down to what makes me dysphoric 🥴

Cheers, @Datun. Sorry, it wasn't directed at you specifically, just a few points I was wondering about.

But trans women aren't acting at being women they are women.

That would only be true if the word 'women' meant 'people who feel like they're a woman'. It doesn't though. Woman means adult human female. You can choose to believe it means something else if you like. Doesn't mean it's true.

Ladyfidget, transphobia may be "arseholery" but science is science and the law is the law.

The prominent transwoman and trans activist Jessica Yaniv/Jessica Simpson has said she finds it offensive to be referred to by her prostate.

If being referred to by body parts isn't good enough for her, it's not good enough for us, either.

Text of tweet for people using screenreaders.

Calling trans women "this person with a prostate" is rude and offensive. Not myself, nor @nicespurling should take that kind of harassment. Completely disgraceful. #LGBTQ2 #LGBTQ

twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1329159192012353550?s=19

That's because they aren't women. They identify as such but the aren't women. Because humans cannot change sex.

Ladyfidget, transphobia may be "arseholery" but science is science and the law is the law.

And in any case, surely 'transphobia' means 'fear or hatred of trans people'? Not 'recognising people's biological sex' or 'disagreeing that people can change sex'. I think Christians are wrong about the existence of god. That makes me an atheist, not Christianphobic.

@Datun

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 not a lawyer ifIwerenotanandroid, but I imagine people have the same recourse as if they are discriminated against on, say, the basis of sex.

I don't know at what point, if any, it tips over into criminal law.

But I don't think, for example, that you can now prevent women meeting, to discuss this protected belief. As was happening before Covid put paid to public meetings.

The EA protects us from discrimination in the areas of work, provision of services and public functions, housing, education, clubs and associations.

An individual cannot bring a discrimination claim against another private individual, it has to be against an employer, service provider etc.

So for example if the employer treated you badly because someone had contacted them, you might have a case against the employer, if a venue refused to allow you to hold a meeting, you might have a case against the venue.

(The individuals in these examples may have committed criminal offences though)

If someone insisted on continuing to call you 'cis' or called you 'bigot' or 'transphobe', this might amount to unlawful harassment if it happened at work, in the provision of services etc. but not if it's just some random on twitter or in the street.

Thanks for that LangClegsInSpace.

I was remembering that meeting where the horde outside smacked and kicked at the windows whilst chanting, creating a hell of a din, to intimidate the women who were trying to have a meeting inside. The police did nothing.

Is there recourse in that specific situation?

This is an excerpt from a video by transwoman and youtuber Natalie Wynn, otherwise known as Contrapoints.

Would someone who thinks terms like "menstruator" are inclusive like to tell me how many times a transman, who doesn't, should put up with being referred to in this way?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

This is an excerpt from a video by transwoman and youtuber Natalie Wynn, otherwise known as Contrapoints.

Would someone who thinks terms like "menstruator" are inclusive like to tell me how many times a transman, who doesn't, should put up with being referred to in this way?

What other wording would you like? Women and people who menstruate?

I’m so pleased with this judgement.

I like others would never want to see a transwoman or transman be harassed, abused, treated unfairly, hurt etc. I want everyone to feel safe regardless of their protected characteristic.

But I will never declare my pronouns at work or refer to myself as a cis female. I will respect other people’s desire to be described in any way they wish, use any pronoun or name to the best of my ability. I will love and respect trans people as I love and respect all people.

This judgement hasn’t changed my views. But I hope it affords me some protection moving forward.

Yes, you could bring a case against the police I'd have thought (I don't even pretend to be a lawyer though).