Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Maya Forstater

689 replies

DianeBrewster · 05/05/2019 09:40

MN have deleted the thread started by Maya - who lost her job for speaking up for women- because it talks about her crowdfunding for legal costs

Here is today's times article on the case https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-aren-t-women-tpqgnm9vj?shareToken=3f12f5cae61c02fd41040eb816fd37b4&wgu=2705255426441557045162977940f0d76fa1&wgexpiry=1564821162&utmmsource=planit&utmmedium=affiliate&utmm_content=22278

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
TalkingintheDark · 08/05/2019 13:03

I’m actually relieved I missed it now. Would have been the same, TheOtherPamAyres. Blood pressure can’t handle it.

MrsSnippyPants · 08/05/2019 13:05

Laura Perrins article
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/fired-for-telling-the-truth/

Joisanofthedales · 08/05/2019 13:13

I wish I hadn't watched it. Am I allowed to say I hated virtually every word that that disgusting panel spoke and Coburn turning her back like that made me so angry I threw my handbag across the room and am now trying to find it's contents. Confused

CriticalCondition · 08/05/2019 13:13

Do the panel members not see the supreme irony?

There they are, on a public platform, where they freely express their views about trans issues. Maya has done the same thing but lost her job as a result.

How can they not get it?

R0wantrees · 08/05/2019 13:14

Its worth saving as an example of bias, confirmation bias, propaganda & misinformation.
Particularly relevent as this was a BBC politics program.

Maya Forstater's calm, factual answers are a matter of record.
There will be more interviews & discussions about this important case.

I wonder sometimes if panelists & journalists are mostly driven by feelings for their friends...

ThePurportedDoctoress · 08/05/2019 13:18

If it hadn't been for Bernard's keyboard accident, I would have put my foot through the screen. Thank you Bernard for diffusing the situation Grin

resisterpersister · 08/05/2019 13:25

You can still catch Maya on BBC 2 live here. Scroll back to 11:45.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo?fbclid=IwAR3Fb822CR43xYmMNTXzvWaODqUDWwq9gvKsZ7tjhTo9Au4wMP1AIh3KQR8

S1naidSucks · 08/05/2019 13:28

I absolutely love this comment in the
Conservative article.

Peak insanity? You know that feeling where one arrives panting at a peak and then sees a higher one over there... and having reached that peak sees another, higher, beyond it? I suspect we are, regrettably, merely in the foothills.

ThePurportedDoctoress · 08/05/2019 13:28

There they are, on a public platform, where they freely express their views about trans issues. Maya has done the same thing but lost her job as a result.
Exactly. How are women supposed to voice their concerns about self-ID if we're not allowed to say that we don't believe that transwomen are women?

"I'm not sure about this self-id proposal."
"Why?"
"I can't really say."
"But you believe that transwomen are women, don't you?"
"Yes of course. TWAW, TWAW, TWAW."
"So what's the problem?"
"Well, women's rights..."
"BUT YOU JUST AGREED THAT TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN."

ErrolTheDragon · 08/05/2019 13:31

If it hadn't been for Bernard's keyboard accident

Those of us who missed it really want to know.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2019 13:38

Reminder of the letter by Fairplay for Women July 2018:

'Open letter to the BBC: Please uphold your duty for fairness and ensure women’s voices are heard'

Dear Tony Hall,
We are writing to ask you, as Director-General of the BBC, for reassurance that the BBC will uphold its responsibilities to provide balanced, fair coverage with regard to political and public debate about women’s rights in relation to transgender issues.

At the Westminster Social Policy Forum in June, a BBC executive revealed that the new BBC’s style guide for journalists is being revised to change the way BBC journalists approach transgender issues. These issues are receiving more and more coverage and the Government will be opening a public consultation on Gender Recognition Act on Tuesday 3rd July. This is now an urgent matter and the content of your style guide is of crucial importance.

We are writing to ask you to ensure that amid these developments, the updated BBC style guide ensures coverage is balanced and properly reflects the potential implications for women and their legal rights, and the concerns that many people feel about those implications.

We want to live in a world where transgender people can live freely and happily without discrimination. We also want our own rights and protections as women to remain workable.

To make sure that happens, we need to talk, as a nation, about some pretty big questions, such as:

At what point, if any, does society believe a man can actually become a woman?

How do we protect the group in society with female biology if society agrees ‘women’ no longer describes them exclusively?

The answers to these questions have unprecedented implications for women’s sex-based rights. If anyone can choose their sex based on how they feel, not biology, surgery or a medical diagnosis, rights women now take for granted become meaningless in law and practice.

Things like:

The right for all women and girls to choose single sex spaces in certain sensitive situations, such as when changing or showering, or sleeping in shared accommodation
The right for women to choose to compete in single sex sports at any level
The importance of statistics such as equal pay, crime statistics etc to be collected on the basis of biological sex as well as or instead of the gender people say they feel
That even voicing opinions on and demands for women’s rights not be labelled or even considered ‘hate speech’ or ‘discrimination’, even when they may conflict with the demands of some trans rights activists
The right to meet and organise politically with other women about issues that affect us on the basis of our female biology

“Transwomen are women” is opinion not fact
We do not feel the BBC has given due weight to such critical and far reaching issues that have the potential to affect every woman and girl in Britain today. And none of these questions can be even considered in a political debate if the conversation starts from the assumption that transwomen are exactly the same as biological women.

We understand this is a complicated and sensitive subject. We are firmly for respectful debate, and have no wish to unnecessarily offend. But too much is at stake here for too many women, and we must be able to have a full and frank debate as a nation. We cannot do that if assertions are presented as though they are fact, uncritically and without question.

The essence of our concern is that the BBC, consciously or otherwise, appears to be accepting and reporting as facts things that are in fact the subject of contention. The manner in which BBC content describes and reports aspects of the debate around transgender people and their legal rights means that the BBC is effectively taking a side in that debate, instead of upholding its commitment to neutrality and balance.

The manner in which BBC content describes and reports aspects of the debate around transgender people and their legal rights could mean the BBC is effectively taking a side in that debate, instead of upholding its commitment to neutrality and balance.

It is imperative that journalists and producers are given urgent and clear guidance from senior editorial management on how to report this issue.

Legally speaking, a male-born person who identifies as female is can only be said to be a woman if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. To present any other male-born transgender person to BBC audiences as a woman (either explicitly or by implication) is to make a judgement on an area of contention and controversy.

The new BBC style guide must ensure women’s voices are heard fairly and equally
The Government has announced its intention to consult on matters of law such as the Gender Recognition Act in the coming weeks. In a recent response to a Parliamentary petition requesting that women’s concerns and legal rights be respected in this process, the Government confirmed that it recognises women’s groups as legitimate stakeholder in this process. A similar position has been taken by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, which has promised to consult women’s groups on Labour Party policy on transgender issues.

In short, the people who set policy on this area accept that women’s voices must be heard fairly and equally in debate about such policy. We are concerned that the BBC does not have policies and practices in place that ensure its own content ensures such balance.

Given the growing salience of gender issues in political debate and the imminent Government consultation, please provide the answers to the following questions, in the hope of allaying our concerns over your coverage of that debate:

As a matter of policy, what guidance is given to BBC editorial staff about how to ensure the voices of women concerned about the impact on their rights in relation to trans issues are fairly represented?

What is BBC policy on the introduction and presentation of self-identifying women to BBC audiences? What guidance is given to editorial staff about whether and how to explain the status of such speakers, their gender and the pronouns used in relation to them?
Have any external groups been consulted regarding your update of editorial style guidelines in relation to these issues, and if so who?
When will the updated style guide be published?

Yours, Fair Play for Women"
fairplayforwomen.com/open-letter-to-bbc/

littlbrowndog · 08/05/2019 13:47

Bernard said the green woman looked like a hostage. But the autocorrect missed out stage part of word

ErrolTheDragon · 08/05/2019 14:04
Grin
RoyalCorgi · 08/05/2019 14:16

Looking at the Conservative Woman article again and that email to Maya:

"You stated that a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality. A lot of people would find that offensive and exclusionary."

Isn't that extraordinary? The idea that a simple, unarguable statement of fact can be "offensive and exclusionary"? Do you imagine he wrote that with a straight face?

Michelleoftheresistance · 08/05/2019 14:28

That sentence baffles me too.

Is it really 'exclusionary' to say that no, men can't be women?

But then there's stuff being released from Edinburgh Uni as posted on the other thread that even women talking about current law is wrong and mustn't be allowed, because women mustn't have anything or talk about anything that isn't fully inclusive of the men that wish to be a part of them.

And mentioning any downsides involved for the women in this illusion is Burn The Witch time. No matter how much you hedge it around with how 'sensitive' it is, and how 'difficult' it is to say no to men.

Michelleoftheresistance · 08/05/2019 14:31

Not to mention I find it extremely offensive and exclusionary when we're supposed to pretend that 'including' men in women's spaces doesn't immediately exclude a large group of women, many from protected groups.

And that this pretence involves homophobia, racism, disablism, sexism, misogynism, and discrimination on grounds of religion, culture and belief. I find that really offensive and actually exclusionary.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 08/05/2019 14:35

Is it really 'exclusionary' to say that no, men can't be women?

It is, but that's a good thing. Whenever we define anything it excludes things that are not that thing. So the definition of cats excludes horses, and so on.

The definition of woman excludes man. And so it should. It's a function of the definition.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 08/05/2019 14:39

Opinion polls on self ID clearly show that the general public do not believe TWAW

this is a subject of intense public debate. The conversation should not have moved to the panel’s views on what Maya was saying without a balance of opinions

And I’m so bloody sick of the BBC being so detached from the views of it’s licence payers on this subject. They’re supposed to be impartial FFS

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 08/05/2019 14:42

And YY, exclusion and discrimination are not necessarily bad, as long as the criteria you are discriminating and excluding on are sound

I personally feel strongly that any old dufus or hooray Henry should not walk into top universities. I think we should be discriminating on the basis of academic ability

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 08/05/2019 14:45

The word "exclusionary" is typically used dishonestly in this debate. The word "discriminate" is another one.

Because it's often used in phrases like "racial discrimination" people tend to assume that discriminating is an intrinsically bad thing. However it just means to differentiate. We differentiate between groups or objects for a multitude of inoffensive reasons all the time.

Genderfreelass · 08/05/2019 14:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

R0wantrees · 08/05/2019 14:55

Tom Harwood is really very sure he's right.

twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1126120928872673286

Hmm
Maya Forstater
BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 08/05/2019 15:12

Tom Harwood is, as Floral correctly observed, an oily little plonker, apparently given to opining on things he knows zip about

ThePurportedDoctoress · 08/05/2019 15:12

"Btw self-ID is good"??????????
You're up for mansplainer of the year, Tom.

Swipe left for the next trending thread