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!

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer

Medical ones are the obvious ones. But language still needs to be simple so not to be exclusive. Tweets encouraging girls.to join rainbows. Tweet about local libraries. Tweets about book clubs. Tweets about mother and baby groups. Breast feeding circles. All require simple language. There are far more examples of where simple language is required than not. Where trans and non binary is required are in groups specifically tailored to them.

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer sorry, I missed this. Yes, I agree - as someone who has English as a second language, it’s very important to be clear. And I understand that’s even more important when learning difficulties come into play, I’m absolutely not disputing that.

But there does come a point where that same language has to include new words. And I don’t even mean words relating to trans people, I mean generally. So while I completely appreciate your point, I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect the lexicon to never change.

@BoreOfWhabylon

I think you should stop going on and on and on about language.

What should I say instead?

Nothing?

Or you could start a separate thread on language as it appears it is a subject you are fanatically invested in Pumper.

@RedDogsBeg

Or you could start a separate thread on language as it appears it is a subject you are fanatically invested in Pumper.

Yes, maybe I will. I should.

Apologies Pumper, that was rude of me.

You carry on with whatever you want to talk about. I'm leaving the thread now.

I have seen this copied and pasted in a few places:

Breaking news at 10:45 & virtually every news bulletin since then...
Maya Forstater appeal rules that anti-trans views are "protected" under the Equality Act, equivalent to religious views.
In context, this means beliefs like
• "Trans women are men and are a danger to women & girls"
... are now included along with existing UK Equality Act "Protected Religious Beliefs" such as
• "Homosexuals are an abomination corrupting our society"
• "Women are inferior to men and intrinsically untrustworthy"
I, and many others, find all of these beliefs deeply offensive - but the law says you can't legally be sacked for HOLDING these beliefs as part of your religion or philosophy.
And you can express those beliefs at meetings of your religion/sect/cult/etc or in other places where it doesn't harm others.
But your employer has a duty to provide a safe welcoming workplace for others - if you act on or express these beliefs in ways that make others feel unsafe or unwelcome in your workplace, your employer is obliged to act and entitled to take disciplinary action or sack you.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Apologies Pumper, that was rude of me.

You carry on with whatever you want to talk about. I'm leaving the thread now.

Not to worry Bore, it’s an emotive topic and we’re not saints.

Oh ffs
Leads me to conclude

People are actually thicker than you could ever credit

@MrsPeacockInTheLibrary

I have seen this copied and pasted in a few places:

Breaking news at 10:45 & virtually every news bulletin since then...
Maya Forstater appeal rules that anti-trans views are "protected" under the Equality Act, equivalent to religious views.
In context, this means beliefs like
• "Trans women are men and are a danger to women & girls"
... are now included along with existing UK Equality Act "Protected Religious Beliefs" such as
• "Homosexuals are an abomination corrupting our society"
• "Women are inferior to men and intrinsically untrustworthy"
I, and many others, find all of these beliefs deeply offensive - but the law says you can't legally be sacked for HOLDING these beliefs as part of your religion or philosophy.
And you can express those beliefs at meetings of your religion/sect/cult/etc or in other places where it doesn't harm others.
But your employer has a duty to provide a safe welcoming workplace for others - if you act on or express these beliefs in ways that make others feel unsafe or unwelcome in your workplace, your employer is obliged to act and entitled to take disciplinary action or sack you.

Well that's a stretch, to say the least. Nowhere in the judgement did the judge state that anti- trans (or anti anything else) views are acceptable. The only people who believe that GC views are anti trans are those who do not believe that women, as a sex class should have rights.

The implication of course is that this is what they want people to believe GC views are. Can't have allies starting to think GC people are reasonable and are standing up for legal rights of women and girls.

If I ever came across an anti trans comment I would call it out.

And that leads neatly back to the point Simon Fanshawe made on Radio 4 earlier, the problem with Stonewall is that CAUSES workplace division because it pits trans rights against sex based rights.

I really do feel for employers who will have to untangle this mess, particularly if they have been misled on the actual law by Stonewall who they ought to be able to trust.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the remaining Diversity Champions.

Sorry should have said yesterday not earlier.

@MouseyTheVampireSlayer

Because your post was rude and accusatory. Mumsnet only allows civilised discussion.

😂😂😂

I agree. I also agree that it is frightening how far down the line this went before logic and common sense prevailed.

The 'anti' tag is so bloody tiresome, not believing in something doesn't make you anti it, they just have to up their we are the most oppressed bullshit status at every available opportunity, it's wearing incredibly thin and more and more people are seeing through it.

@RedDogsBeg

The 'anti' tag is so bloody tiresome, not believing in something doesn't make you anti it, they just have to up their we are the most oppressed bullshit status at every available opportunity, it's wearing incredibly thin and more and more people are seeing through it.

Apart from anything else, I think gender non-conformity is bloody great! More of it I say! Every trans woman and trans man should be proof that assigning personalities to body types is (ahem) bollocks, and people of both sexes come in a huge variation.

What I am anti is the idea that sex, the root of female disadvantage in a society and culture shaped by patriarchy, can be ignored, or that a male's feeling about what a woman is takes priority over females' right to self-define.

@MrsPeacockInTheLibrary, stating that trans women are men is a simple statement of fact, this is what Maya did. while 'TWAM and a danger to young girls' is a prejudice, akin to stating that 'Muslim men' or 'black men' are a danger to girls. At any point did Maya say this? Did anyone who is under discussion today? And yes, it is perfectly okay to say that women need legal protection from men, because as a sex class they are vulnerable to men (collective noun) who do most of the sex offending. That is a fact-based opinion. You cannot conflate that with offensive transphobia.

What I am anti is the idea that sex, the root of female disadvantage in a society and culture shaped by patriarchy, can be ignored, or that a male's feeling about what a woman is takes priority over females' right to self-define.
Well said!

Also as a wise woman on Twitter said "Removing women's ability to describe themselves as a group is the ultimate act of male oppression."

"Removing women's ability to describe themselves as a group is the ultimate act of male oppression."

Absolutely

Although if that’s what the trans community were happy with
How would anyone ascertain what any diverse (and geographically distributed) ‘community’ wants?

Small groups of activists often claim to represent particular ‘communities’, but seldom do.

It’s very interesting that someone who professes to be pleased about today’s ruling has come onto the thread and done everything in their power to derail the conversation away from the case being discussed and onto a different track altogether, in a very weird way.

Almost as if this person wasn’t pleased about the ruling at all and is in fact trying very hard to shut down the conversation about it.

Surely no one would be that disingenuous?

Surely no one would be that invested in silencing women on this absolutely historic day, this day that has seen a HUGE victory for women’s rights, this day that is making so many of us feel absolutely fired up with our collective success?

Well, if they did… it wouldn’t work.

Because today we won.

And anyone who isn’t happy about that can go and commiserate with themselves in any way they see fit. But they won’t rain on our parade.

BECAUSE WE WON.

💜🤍💚 💜🤍💚 💜🤍💚 💜🤍💚 💜🤍💚

I have seen this copied and pasted in a few places:

Do you agree with it? It completely misunderstands both the case and the outcome.

But your employer has a duty to provide a safe welcoming workplace for others - if you act on or express these beliefs in ways that make others feel unsafe or unwelcome in your workplace, your employer is obliged to act and entitled to take disciplinary action or sack you.

That doesn't just apply to making it a safe and welcoming workplace for trans people, because amazingly women also have rights not to be made to feel unsafe or unwelcome. So it won't be as easy to bully women out of organisations for supporting sex based rights. And as this belief is as protected as the TWAW belief, your employer might be obliged to sack people for harassing gender critical women, too.

So I wouldn't repost any lame old copy and paste nonsense you see on Twitter.