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

That Maya believed that "transgender women shouldn't have the legal right to change sex"

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

The employers appear to have shit lawyers AND nothing to build a case on.

Yeah that's piss poor. Even if the client specifically asked them to put that argument, they shouldn't do so if they know it's wrong and if they don't know it's wrong, there's a problem. I'm not one to berate a legal professional for the client they represent, and for all we know this barrister could be gender critical, but reading and correctly interpreting legislation is rather an important part of the role...

Could the guardian be sued over that?

Oh really, what did it say?!

Interestingly, the amended Guardian article has the same time stamp as the original, and no indication that it has been amended.

The Guardian is an embarrassment

This comment by Scaramouche under the Times article made me laugh (bitterly, obvs):

And the truth will set you free. Free to find another job, apparently.

Old Crone yes I noticed that, as well! Not their usual M.O.

"An email from a manager at the think tank said: “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."”

A man's internal feeling? Shockingly transphobic there.

Seriously though:
Well they did say that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the GRA. Wrong protected characteristic and wrong act of parliament.

Unless this was a REALLY UNFORTUNATE slip of the tongue/flub, it really demonstrates they don't know what on earth the argument even is. Surely anyone vaguely familiar with the ins and outs of this stuff has heard nasty women pointing out the EA2010 and would know the list of protected characteristics very well? I simply don't understand how this has passed by someone who is supposedly knowledgeable about this whole issue? As PPs say, it sounds like someone who's just read about it on Twitter.

My thought on how the arguments don't work is that I've been reading around this matter for years and I've reached a point where I'm aware of many logical inconsistencies, double thinks, hypocrisies, etc. But you need to get familiar with the topsy-turvy world to be able to navigate it effectively. A barrister doing a few days' reading-in will get a certain level of familiarity but will miss much. They won't properly get to grips with how much of the ideology relies on dishonest elisions of sex and gender and won't see how easily that can expose their arguments when up against someone who has been thinking about this stuff for years, and who can argue effectively.

As another case based on gender identity turns into an incomprehensible mess in a court, I hope the word starts to get out in the legal profession that cases involving injury against a (trans) person is one thing while those involving injury against an ideology is quite another.

It's almost as if they're at the "toddler stage" of the debate...

It is much much more than unfortunate that the barrister doesn’t know the Equality Act; the whole case is being brought over a breach of the Equality Act!

To me one fundamental point of the case is that gender identity ideology gets examined in a forum in which facts and evidence are paramount. Let's see what happens when a barrister tries to base their arguments on an ideology that relies on Orwellian thinking.

Yes, I'm hopeful that "dishonest elisions of sex and gender" are going to be main plain and picked apart in a very public way in this case.

main plain made plain

As another case based on gender identity turns into an incomprehensible mess in a court,

Exactly.

Even the barrister's sentence "You stated that a man’s internal feeling..."

could be referring to a man, a woman, a woman who thinks she's a man, a man who thinks he's a woman. Anything.

and I've reached a point where I'm aware of many logical inconsistencies, double thinks, hypocrisies, etc. But you need to get familiar with the topsy-turvy world to be able to navigate it effectively.

I agree. Which is why actually making TRAs argue for their position is far and away the most effective demonstration of its nonsense.

I agree. Which is why actually making TRAs argue for their position is far and away the most effective demonstration of its nonsense.

And something they don't ever want to do. These things may possibly be linked.

Thanks so much to those reporting.

Huge, HUGE admiration for Maya.

Which is why actually making TRAs argue for their position is far and away the most effective demonstration of its nonsense.

We've said this forever. There are some fearsomely articulate women posting on FWR, but the most effective threads in exposing the illogical, circular, ethically and intellectually bankrupt nonsense that passes for Transactivism's most compelling arguments are the ones where we just let them have a go at clearly explaining what they believe. They flail and suddenly find they need to do some pressing work on their boat or cake icing.

There's a reason AWAs want #NoDebate.

I say Let. Them. Talk.

Just caught up with this and RTFT

Adding my huge admiration and respect to Maya.

It’s hard not to feel outraged that she should have to even listen to this utter tosh in a law court. But at the same time giving the whole sorry mess exactly the sunlight it desperately needs.

It’s hard not to feel outraged that she should have to even listen to this utter tosh in a law court.

I dunno, I'm kind of looking forward to the netflix mini series

I just learned that Inherit The Wind, the play referred to in the Grainger case, was a parable on McCarthyism as much as it was to do with creationism vs. evolution.

"We used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of mind control," Lawrence told Newsday for a story on the 1996 Broadway revival of the play. "It's not about science versus religion. It's about the right to think."

Just as Arthur Miller looked to the 17th century Salem witch trials to make his anti-McCarthyism statement in "The Crucible," Lawrence and Lee found their vehicle in Scopes. "We thought, 'Here's another time when there was a corset on your intellectual and artistic spirit," Lawrence said.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141113051143/cjonline.com/stories/030201/wee_inherit.shtml" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20141113051143/cjonline.com/stories/030201/wee_inherit.shtml

That's my Sunday afternoon film sorted

archive.org/details/InheritTheWindNtsc

Maya's employment tribunal, and Fair Cop's judicial review, look like being the 'monkey trials' for the 21st century.

....but don't forget To Kill A Mockingbird.

They just lynch em anyway.

They made an excellent TV drama out of the Mclibel case. Julia Sawalha was Helen Steel iirc.
Here's hoping.