Maya Forstater court case

[Bardonnay]

Sorry to link to the DM but they've covered Maya Forstater's upcoming court case here:
https://mol.im/a/7683207.

Maya's account of events is here and her post links to updates about the case: https://medium.com/@MForstater/i-lost-my-job-for-speaking-up-about-womens-rights-2af2186ae84

Pencils ok maybe not then. That is rather a basic fact to have got wrong

That’s an interesting observation about the lawyer. The employers must have known that this is a losing case.

This is truly amazing.

All the arguments we have here on threads, and on Twitter, are about to be actually tested in court.

Well they did say that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the GRA. Wrong protected characteristic and wrong act of parliament. For a barrister that really is quite rubbish blush

I mean I know they've got no argument, but to make to such basic mistakes is indefensible. Not just making the mistakes, but the ridicule that you are going to be subjected to because of it.

Utterly avoidable and unnecessary.

“I have always believed that sex is a material reality, that being female or male is an immutable biological act, and that sex matters, and I always will.”

How have we come to this?

Anyone, absolutely anyone reading that will think what the hell...???

All the arguments we have here on threads, and on Twitter, are about to be actually tested in court.

This is the thing that leapt out at me today. I'd imagine that Maya wanted to hold her employer* to account but I wonder if it was also a particular goal of hers to get gender identity vs sex in a court room. Because as we've seen, explaining gender identity ends up as an incoherent mess. Even a fully prepared barrister makes a hash of trying to talk their way around it in a way that makes sense.

What we're seeing is someone trying to argue gender identity = material reality, sex = social construct. It doesn't seem to be going very well in a forum where facts and evidence are intended to take precedence.

• I realise the relationship might not be that simple

nauticant

Exactly. It's really the TRA arguments that are on trial, not ours.

Damn right. This is definitely make or break for the TRA bullshit argument schema. This is where they stand or fall. It's basically the Scopes monkey trial of our generation, and the TRAs are the side pressing for the religious beliefs to be paramount over the facts. I suspect it's going to get rather a lot of attention.

This is incredible, go Maya! So grateful you’re doing this.
As a op said, it’s really the TRAs and their rhetoric on trial.
Cannot believe a solicitor used ‘do you want to be seen agreeing with the daily mail’as an actual argument in court 🙄

Barristers can't throw cases. It's not L.A. Law!

Guardian article.

amp.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/15/researcher-defends-tweets-on-trans-rights-at-employment-tribunal?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Barristers can't throw cases. It's not L.A. Law!

Spoilsport!

Well done Maya

Just to remind everyone - the belief bit is only part of the case. It is entirely possible she is held to have a genuine belief but loses due to the quite complicated nature of the ‘employment’ relationship.

I would still count that a win though! But costs wise it would not be.

What are the next stages, and when?

I've been mad busy all day so desperately trying to catch up on all the various threads and Twitter, but um...

... the employers' lawyer likened human sexual dimorphism to bible stories?! BIBLE STORIES?!

Bloody woke creationists DARVO everything.

I think they are back on Monday. Normally cases are heard (may take a few days) then the judge goes away to think and then judgement is issued at some unspecified future date (few weeks/months).

I couldn't quite believe the daily mail comment.

I mean, as edited by Dacre I loathed the Mail. I thought it was a pernicious negative influence on British life. But even then, I knew there was potential to find myself agreeing with something in it - that a racist murder was bad, for example. And I'd never have used 'dont agree with the Mail' as some kind of serious argument in court. We have got to stop this guilt by association stuff, and that means me as much as anyone else.

the employers' lawyer likened human sexual dimorphism to bible stories?!

Because they are trying to prove sexual dimorphism isn’t a belief and we know that there are no religions or beliefs for which the bible stories form a central basis of their faith... Well apart from a few billion Christians and Jews...

Maya is amazing

Calm, informed, and rational (though with those statements on your personality Maya, you're potentially stepping outside your gender-prison of 'feminine' - maybe you're a bit gender non-conforming, have you considered you might be non-binary!)

I've never been able to get beyond the fact that CGDev manges to host and post about events like these:

twitter.com/CGDev/status/1195348333365211138
The gendered nature of #childcare limits #women & #girls’ educational attainment, workforce advancement, & full participation in community life.

• and yet they are willing to pay their legal team to suggest to Maya that stating that men aren't women is a terrible statement, and only something she maybe realised in the last couple of years?

The women that the event CGDev refers to aren't limited by their 'gender identity', they're limited by their SEX.

As Maya says, when they say 'gender' they mean 'sex'!

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I'm rather looking forward to the daily mail's reporting of this court case...

I'm not, really. I don't want the trope that left wingers believe in feminine souls and only right wingers can see material reality to gain any more traction than it already has.

Thank you Maya. You must be absolutely shattered after today. The level of argument presented by the employer/defence was almost laughable and having to remain calm and collected throughout must have been really difficult.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned in my life is that whatever label you put on yourself, you will eventually have to have the "No, not like that" conversation. I'm a feminist, but I've had to have the 'No, it's not that women should be able to choose their own abasement freely' talk so many times. I'm a leftie, but no, it doesn't mean that I wear Che Guevara t-shirts and think everything should be free. I'm approaching veganism, but no, I don't think all farmers are the devil incarnate.

I read lots of news sources, and little demons don't jump across the words and inhabit my soul. I am astounded this was an actual line in a court of law.

Well, apparently there are loads of journalists there, so hopefully the left-wing press will report it too.

I was more thinking that it's the height of stupidity to go criticising one of the most popular newspapers in the country on the day they're taking notes about your evidence.

Datun, you're not wrong. And the stupid thing is, everyone bloody knows it. It's the reason Stop Funding Hate started and takes the approach it does - the reason they take issue with some of the editorial lines is precisely because of the influence of some of these publications. A pointless little backstreet single sheet zine read by no one that had the same views wouldn't matter. They know that the only chance they have of denting that influence is punitive financial methods. But the influence remains. I'm no great fan of the paper, but you are an A-grade fool if you acknowledge the influence and think you can escape it's scrutiny.