Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

999 replies

DancesWithTortoises · 10/06/2021 11:29

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!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
BlueLipstickRocks · 11/06/2021 20:47

That is not what is being suggested at all.

Thats exactly what's being suggested.

I'm able to be transsexual just have to stay away from women as who I am is deemed to be disrespecting boundaries.

Rejoiningperson · 11/06/2021 20:50

I want to see a time where mutual respect removes a need for boundaries.
Mutual respect is boundaries. It is acknowledging and respecting them. You can’t have mutual respect without them, which is why one of the big red flags women are told to look out for if she is in a domestic abuse situation is whether she feels that her boundaries are being eroded. Saying you are ‘trans’ is a new definition or boundary to yourself. That is fine and I would respect your new definition of yourself.

Rejoiningperson · 11/06/2021 20:52

@BlueLipstickRocks you are already talking to women. Right here! No one has told you to go away. Everyone is being very inclusive of you on a predominantly female space, mumset. What are you talking about?!

MouseyTheVampireSlayer · 11/06/2021 20:53

The only way that is what is being suggested is if you consider women as props essential for transvestism.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:00

@BlueLipstickRocks

That you have behaved in a very similar way to a great number of other biologically male people, throughout history: that is, treating us as if we are a commodity that exists to validate you,

I have done no such thing. Please do not look to make me take responsibility simply by virtue of my natal sex.

You took something from me without asking in the first place: it’s not up to me to find an adequate replacement for you now I’m asking you to give it back.

You are free to seek changes in law but right now you are asking me to voluntarily give up my legal rights. You want me to find a replacement when a law already exists because you don't agree with it

You have done exactly that thing and I already explained how.

I’m not asking you to take responsibility just because you’re biologically male, but because your actual behaviour is typical of biologically male people. You feel entitled to use women’s facilities, despite the disadvantage it causes us. You feel entitled to demand that we square this circle for you, despite the huge additional pressure that places on us. You use us as a commodity to benefit yourself.

I don’t see any empathy or respect for women coming from you. Possibly you resent us for being what you wish you were. But that’s not our fault. I think your hijacking of this thread to make it all about you is just another example of male entitlement.

You are part of the oppressor class, transsexual or not. It’s astonishing how you can be so casual and unconcerned about how you are harming women and girls, all while expecting us to feel compassion for you, to cater for you at our own expense.

That couldn’t be more stereotypical (and misogynistic) in terms of male/female dynamics. You are absolutely mired in those gender roles you claim you wish didn’t exist, and you’re not playing the stereotypically female part.

Yes, I asked you to consider giving up your legal rights on the basis you have no moral entitlement to them. It was theft, aided and abetted by the state, but still theft. I’m appealing to your common decency as a human being, because it was this atrocious piece of legislation that led directly to the nightmare we’re in now, where the most blatantly obviously male (and predatory) of men can simply claim to be trans if he wishes, and access all areas.

You might not have wished for this monster but it was the work of the “genuine transsexuals” that paved the way for its creation.

But anyway, you’ve made it clear you have no intention of doing what I suggest is the decent thing, because the way things are now suits you well enough and you obviously couldn’t care less about the consequences for actual biologically female people. Good to know where we stand with you.

Definitely a case of identifying as rather than identifying with.

And a shining example of why we need to repeal the GRA.

Artichokeleaves · 11/06/2021 21:15

@BlueLipstickRocks

Perhaps males respecting females & observing their boundaries could be a first step towards the ideal society you envisage.

Or in other words I have to stop being transsexual.

That seems rather straw man.

How did you get from:

some female people need to be able to have a separate, female only space for SOME spaces and resources, and are excluded if they cannot have this

to:

if any female people's needs are met in this way it stops me being transsexual?

Can you not be yourself and at the same time respect the intersectionality and particular needs of SOME female people and some boundaries specifically around SOME spaces for their sex based needs?

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:15

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I want to see a time where mutual respect removes a need for boundaries.

Boundaries are actually quite a healthy thing to have. I think we are nowhere near this utopia you dream of.

Indeed. Boundaries acknowledge material differences between people. Between adults and children, for example. Or between biologically male people and biologically female people.

No amount of social evolution will change those differences. Children will always be smaller, weaker, more vulnerable than adults, will always be dependent on adults, and dependent on those adults’ willingness to treat them properly.

Women will always be, on average, smaller, weaker (in terms of sheer physical force), and vulnerable relative to males. It will always be males who have the potential to impregnate, and females who have the potential to be impregnated, with all the consequences thereof.

These material differences are why we need boundaries. To protect the more vulnerable. Anyone who wants to do away with them presumably doesn’t care about protecting the vulnerable. I don’t call that evolution myself.

And interestingly, the idea of doing away with boundaries smacks very much of Queer Theory and its focus on “transgressing norms” - something that’s at the very heart of current trans rights activism.

Perhaps you have more in common with those activists than you realise, BlueLipstickRocks.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 11/06/2021 21:15

As TalkingtoLangClegintheDark has said, this is turning into a thread hijack so, to avoid possible deletion, let’s get back to Maya and celebrating her victory for common sense,

I, for one, am very grateful that common sense has prevailed. I was shocked by the original decision and remember wondering if that decision had been purposely made in order to have grounds for an appeal that could set precedent.

To be clear, I have absolutely no evidence for that. It was just my response to trying to puzzle out what seemed to me to be an absolutely ludicrous decision.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:20

I also think that a biologically male transsexual should not be included under the same umbrella as a biological female.

Yes, DifficultBloodyWoman. This is what’s known as forced teaming, isn’t it?

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:23

@DifficultBloodyWoman

As TalkingtoLangClegintheDark has said, this is turning into a thread hijack so, to avoid possible deletion, let’s get back to Maya and celebrating her victory for common sense,

I, for one, am very grateful that common sense has prevailed. I was shocked by the original decision and remember wondering if that decision had been purposely made in order to have grounds for an appeal that could set precedent.

To be clear, I have absolutely no evidence for that. It was just my response to trying to puzzle out what seemed to me to be an absolutely ludicrous decision.

Nice theory but I think it was more that Judge Tayler had been thoroughly captured, Difficult!

But yes. Let’s heave that collective sigh of relief once more, and raise a glass to Maya. Wine

Bloody amazing woman!

DifficultBloodyWoman · 11/06/2021 21:26

Yes, I agree. I mean, I wondered because it seemed so ridiculous at the time but then I heard comments on his behaviour during the hearing and decided he had drunk the kool-aid.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:32

In a similar vein, I remember wondering if Danielle Muscato was just some kind of performance art prank, or a deliberate troll to expose the folly of extreme transactivism.

Turns out, no. All quite serious. That boggled my mind.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:33

@DifficultBloodyWoman

Yes, I agree. I mean, I wondered because it seemed so ridiculous at the time but then I heard comments on his behaviour during the hearing and decided he had drunk the kool-aid.
Scary though that a man of reason and justice, supposedly, could get it so wrong.

He’s since been promoted, too.

BlueLipstickRocks · 11/06/2021 21:34

Perhaps you have more in common with those activists than you realise, BlueLipstickRocks.

Thats uncalled for and there is no need for the personal attacks that have now started.

Is this where discussion leads to?

DifficultBloodyWoman · 11/06/2021 21:40

Scary though that a man of reason and justice, supposedly, could get it so wrong.

He’s since been promoted, too.

Really? Why? The mind boggles!

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 21:47

Shocking, isn’t it.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 11/06/2021 21:48

I’ve been watching another thread about possible changes to moderation in light of this decision.

I do think it would be a good idea of MNHQ to review moderation on the FWR board to ensure that all opinions are given the respect they deserve. I’d like to think we can have a robust discussion without the need to self censor as much as was necessary in the past.

I’ve also been wondering if the TRAs might back off a bit in light of the decision in Maya’s case. I suspect that some of them are not easily discouraged but at the same time, common sense has prevailed in the courts and public support is waning.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 22:04

One thing I really noticed yesterday is the one sided-ness of it all - there’s this constant implication that it’s women who are offensive and trans people who are hurt in this. As if we’re just fighting for the right to be mean to people who are structurally less powerful than us. The ruling had an air of that, and the BBC report was just full-on bias.

It never seems to be considered that actually women often find what trans activists do and say very offensive/distressing. That we are hurt here. That actually trans rights activists have a great deal more power in many ways than women: look at the gains they made in astonishingly short time, how they comprehensively captured so much of the Establishment (including Judge Tayler!) - while women battle on for years to get crumbs.

It’s this continued positioning of us as the more powerful in the equation, and trans folk as the embattled minority.

Which is one reason I refuse to countenance the word “cis”, because the whole “cis woman/transwoman” terminology reinforces that idea that women are privileged, and biologically male trans people are a disadvantaged minority relative to us, thereby disguising the true nature of the male privilege/female disadvantage dynamic which is really at play here.

The BBC has so many items that start from an acceptance of transgenderist ideology as the default neutral, when it’s anything but - it really needs to be taken to task for its blatant bias. I hope this ruling makes it easier to do that.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 11/06/2021 22:12

The BBC hasn’t been neutral since the late nineties, in my view. I wouldn’t mind so much but so many people seem to think that it is neutral and don’t recognise the bias. It is pervasive. And that makes it dangerous.

Do you think the tide is turning now, either in public sentiment or the media? And what would have to happen to make the tide move more quickly?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/06/2021 22:18

Great posts, Talking. As always ThanksWine

SeaShoreGalore · 11/06/2021 22:22

Yes, I thought the BBC coverage was awful. They basically said that Maya’s ‘belief’ is offensive - which is ridiculous!

Datun · 11/06/2021 22:22

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Great posts, Talking. As always ThanksWine
Riveting.
Datun · 11/06/2021 22:23

Gosh, I'm so used to snark, that sounded sarcastic. It wasn't. Totally genuine.

Vargas · 11/06/2021 22:47

I'm thrilled about Maya's victory, but I still feel fairly enraged that stating the blindingly obvious is now allowed and we're celebrating it like we've won something that never should have been lost in the first place. But I guess that's how protests often work, like glaciers, 2 steps back and 3 steps forward....

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/06/2021 22:52

Grin thanks for that Datun, and don’t worry, taken in the spirit in which it was intended!

Thank you kindly, lovely wims. Vive la résistance!

Swipe left for the next trending thread