Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'

58 replies

donquixotedelamancha · 14/10/2019 22:02

Apologies if I am duplicate posting, I can't seem to see a thread on this.

I've put the title in quotes because it's from Stephanie Hayden, so is quite possibly untrue. Here is the text of her tweet:

If #Mumsnet are only interested in "free speech" then many of you will find it odd that MumsnetTowers towers are intending to argue in court that #transgender women holding a GRC (legally of the female sex) do not hold the protected characteristic of the sex of a woman.

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1183047304976257025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Charliethefeminist · 15/10/2019 11:10

Woah. How would that go in court. It's like a catch 22.

Did you treat them this way because you thought they were female? YES - Sex discrimination, guilty.

Did you treat them this way because you thought they WEREN'T female? Yes - gender reassignment discrimination, guilty.

I don't know the answer but my mind is blown.

Charliethefeminist · 15/10/2019 11:13

On the all woman shortlists, allowing tw is not illegal through discrimination against women. They're illegal (allegedly etc) by discriminating against men.

Ie some men (legally men through having no GRC) are allowed to do something (be on an all woman shortlist) which other men aren't allowed to do.

That's discriminatory. This is my understanding of it.

Datun · 15/10/2019 11:13

It's infuriating that it's only ever women who are affected by this. Sex discrimination was brought into effect because women were discriminated against. Not men.

Trans Ideology adversely affects women, not men.

Charliethefeminist · 15/10/2019 11:14

You are right but ironically, on AWS, the people who are considered discriminated against, under the law, are other men.

Datun · 15/10/2019 11:18

Charliethefeminist

Thank you, yes got it. I always find I look at discrimination backwards.

You're not allowed to discriminate against men, except (say) on an all women shortlist.

So you wouldn't be leaving the (GRC protected) transwoman off on the basis that you're allowed to discriminate against men.

Do you have to specify why you leave someone off an all women shortlist? I'm guessing it's down to normal competences, is it? Which again, would favour those born male of course.

Qcng · 15/10/2019 12:50

When it comes to all-women shortlists it only legally applies to positions in parliament. (Eg the most well known is "women's officer" which typically leads to other positions).

Anyone can apply for women's officer but it's legal to recruit "women only". Those on the shortlist will be voted in by members. Men who self identify as women but are legally men can also apply, but if they get onto the shortlist and gain the role, it will be considered discriminatory against other (legal) men who were not able to be on the shortlist because the role asked for women only.
You can't ask for men/women only recruits in the private sector. Obviously discrimination does happen but you can't be blatant about it.

Which reminds me, what ever is happening with the Jennifer Jane's Vs the Labour Party case?

fidgetspinner555 · 15/10/2019 12:52

Really, please stop giving this person exposure. Best ignored.....

WalthamstowE17 · 15/10/2019 13:19

Hayden does indeed have a pending court case against Mumsnet Limited. It is set to be a most interesting case.

Hayden wanted to take out a lawsuit claiming monetary damages against the MN user "ALittleHelp18" for exposing certain things Hayden did not want exposed, and Hayden got a court order to force Mumsnet to reveal the user's details. Mumsnet complied, of course.

But the user had given MN false details and, without a name and address, Hayden was unable to issue the suit. The user had given MN Hayden's former name and former address. Breathtakingly naughty.

So Hayden decided to sue Mumsnet for hosting the posts by "ALittleHelp18". Money damages are sought.

Hayden opposes self ID because Hayden has managed to obtain a GRC. However, as ScapaFlo hinted, this is currently the subject of controversy and possible investigation because during the two year qualifying period Hayden was using both the new name and the deadname, which is not allowed. There is also another problem: one of the "sponsors" who wrote a legal "witness statement" in support of the GRC was a family member, which is also firmly against the rules.

Hayden posted perfectly openly on Reddit and in Hayden's own name about how incredibly easy and quick it was to get a GRC. (And yet one complaint we hear constantly from trans people is how difficult, complicated, time-consuming, expensive and invasive it is to get one!)

Hayden wrote:

"I submitted my application on 9 April 2018, got a hearing on 2 May 2018, and my GRC was dated 9 May 2018. The process in Leicester is so efficient. I work in the legal profession [sic] and I have never known any part of HMCTS to be as efficient and professional as the admin people at Leicester GRP!

I arranged my "main" report from Dr Penny Lenihan. Like you my "secondary" report was from my GP, a tick box exercise with a bill for £28! The key to navigating the GRP successfully and quickly is to make sure you have the evidence that they want to see! So documents from the start of your "official" transition, some in between, and a few dated very recently! Passport, driving licence, and academic certificates are evidential "gold". I also padded out my application with a witness statement from myself, as well as a family member who is a close friend. The process is not laborious per se but just a little admin intensive. Get the bureaucracy right and the system can be a 'cake walk' IMO!

Oh yes I had my Charing Cross GIC appointment on 8 June 2018. I had been on hormones privately at that point for years. My medical professional asks, "What evidence have you got to show you've been living in role?"

My reply, "I think you'll find my GRC actually proves that as I need at least 2 years of evidence to get one!"

So there you have it, straight from Hayden's keyboard to Reddit.

With regard to suing MN, an anon female lawyer said:

"Few things cause me more misery and rage than people using the law in a malicious attempt to frighten people and get their own way.

Gender critical women are on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Mumsnet and more, discussing gender and the misogyny of trans activism etc and we are well within our rights to do so. What Stephanie has done is characterise disagreement & the refusal to bow to compelled speech as harassment... How is it harrassment. Logging in and clicking the feminism threads are not unavoidable actions.

Hayden seems to have set themselves up as a public figure and surely public criticism and appraisal comes with that role. From that angle, it's hard for me to see such a case succeeding."

(Sorry I cannot find a link to the thread but it was posted in Nov 2018.)

Qcng · 15/10/2019 13:42

Huh.
I wonder how this case will go....

MrsWednesdayteatime · 15/10/2019 13:46

But the law around primogeniture still says TMAW & TWAM doesn't it? or has the law been updated?

I just skim read this thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3536131-If-men-s-sex-based-rights-i-e-peerages-money-power-and-position-are-protected-by-the-GRA-why-can-t-women-s-be?pg=2

which seems to indicate that an older Transman couldn't inherit Instead of his younger brother. The law concerning inheriting money and power says women are always women no matter what certificates they hold or how they personally identify.

Shouldn't the law be consistent or how are we ever to put our faith in it?

WalthamstowE17 · 15/10/2019 13:57

Wednesday No it has not. Primogeniture ignores gender reassignment. A male will inherit even if he has changed sex. A female cannot change her place in the inheritance pecking order by changing sex to male.

Isn't that SO telling?

Apropos of my previous post, here is the thread I was referring to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3418617-mumsnet-is-breaching-section-26-of-the-equality-act-2010-harassment-by-hosting-feminist-forums-that-discuss-gender-critical-issues-legal-case?pg=1

MrsWednesdayteatime · 15/10/2019 14:05

So if a transmans GRC means nothing In cases of primogeniture, why should I believe anyone's GRC, either the GRC is a fact or it's not.

EverardDigby · 15/10/2019 14:26

Ie some men (legally men through having no GRC) are allowed to do something (be on an all woman shortlist) which other men aren't allowed to do.

I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men - I don't think all men need to be allowed. I'm not sure whether "gender reassignment" works both ways, e.g. can you argue you're being discriminated against because your gender has not been reassigned, e.g. a man claiming discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment because a transwoman is allowed on an all woman shortlist and they are not because their gender hasn't been reassigned?!

HermioneWeasley · 15/10/2019 14:27

Of course Big Steph would never make anything up for attention!

youllhavehadyourtea · 15/10/2019 14:30

'...stephs are being taken...'

ScapaFlo · 15/10/2019 14:55

Wow Walthamstow! I knew I'd read something.

youllhavehadyourtea 😂😂

DickKerrLadies · 15/10/2019 14:56

It was primogeniture which made me realise that for all the bleating that TWAW, this is nothing more than a men's right's movement.

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

NewNameGuy · 15/10/2019 14:59

Repeal the GRA and end this fucking farce

RoyalCorgi · 15/10/2019 15:03

This reply has been deleted

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

GirlDownUnder · 19/10/2019 06:04

Ummmm?? Mumsnet backed down? What? This whole thread (linked and attached) reads like wishful thinking. Is MN doing a reverse ferret??

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1185241904016973824

Stephanie Hayden @ flyinglawyer73
After an about turn #Mumsnet have decided against litigating that #transgender women holding a GRC are not to be considered as having the sex of a woman. Sensible decision.

'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'
'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'
'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'
BoomBoomsCousin · 19/10/2019 06:52

“I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men”

Well, obviously, it will be for a court to decide. But I would argue that if they aren’t relying on the single sex exclusions of the equality act, then a requirement that people “identify as female” is going to adversary impact people of the male sex as the vast majority don’t identify as female.

Sex discrimation doesn’t have to be direct. If you exclude women from a service by requiring that, say, participants have ample facial hair (and such hair is not actually needed for the service to be performed), then you are engaging in sex discrimination even if there are a few women who have ample facial hair and can participate.

donquixotedelamancha · 19/10/2019 13:19

Ummmm?? Mumsnet backed down? What? This whole thread (linked and attached) reads like wishful thinking. Is MN doing a reverse ferret??

I doubt MN have done anything to prompt either post. I think the first post about what they are 'going to do' was as deluded as the idea that they've 'changed their mind'.

The idea that MN are corporately overseeing every detail of their lawyer's response to a baseless lawsuit is all in walter mitty Steph Hayden's head.

OP posts:
Tarkus · 19/10/2019 13:45

Primogeniture ignores gender reassignment. A male will inherit even if he has changed sex. A female cannot change her place in the inheritance pecking order by changing sex to male

You do know this relates only to the right to be called Lord, Duke etc? It doesn't apply to actual money and assets. There is no primogeniture rule in who inherits land, money and assets.

Tarkus · 19/10/2019 13:53

“I'm not sure about this - doesn't the fact that some men are allowed demonstrate that it's NOT discriminating against men”

No it doesn't. An action is discriminatory on sex grounds if it disproportionately affects one sex. It doesn't have to exclude or affect all members of one sex class.

A job condition that all applicants must be at least 5'9" when there is no rational need or justification for this on practical or aesthetic grounds discriminates against women as far more women will fail to meet it. It doesn't matter that some women are taller and some men are shorter.

Datun · 19/10/2019 15:07

There is no primogeniture rule in who inherits land, money and assets.

How does it work with taking their seats in the House of Lords?