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

Indeed, if Maya loses, it seems it will be a hate crime/sackable offence to claim that women exist as a biological sex, as distinct from trans woman

Yes. I think that’s the only way to interpret Maya losing

@ShesDressedInBlackAgain a good point, guess I'm feeling a bit gung ho on a work break! We're deffo gonna need a bigger boat for this one...

yes, the thought of the judge taking the respondent's arguments seriously is terrifying

we'll be in civil disobedience territory if that happens. seriously

It is worrying because they are expecting it to be taken seriously. They are expecting legal sex to be interpreted as actual sex. And they are using every trick in the book to make it so.

This is the trouble with the letter of the law, in that it can defy reality.

I genuinely hope that the judge sees the implications in this. And doesn't just use it as an intellectual exercise to concede.

Indeed, if Maya loses, it seems it will be a hate crime/sackable offence to claim that women exist as a biological sex, as distinct from trans woman
If that happens, we'll be short of a fair few doctors and nurses in the NHS then!

So every biology teacher in the country will also have to be sacked then?

Are they really using those exact terms?

Because if legalfeminist is accurate and it's part of the defence's argument that Maya was bad to use "male" (and defence counsel used "he") to describe Pips Bunce, then they can't fall back on the line that these days "man" and "woman" are about gender, and "male" / "female" are about sex.

They're continually eliding those terms.

LegalFeminist is doing a great job of live tweeting. Thank you.

And Anya is coming across as far more articulate and, dare I say, cogent than the respondent’s counsel.

I heard on the radio this morning king that a state in the US has decreed that if a child writes an exam paper based on their religious teaching then they can’t be marked down.

Ok kids, who can tell me how old the earth is?
4,000 years old sir - I know because that’s what Pastor Smith told me at Sunday school!
Errrr, that’s right Ezekiel - full marks!

Re. Rachel Donezal (sp?)

When I was a teenager, had I been told I could identify as white, and thus be spared all my feelings of inferiority, and the corresponding treatment from others who were white, I'd have jumped at it like a shot. It was my dearest desire. (Fortunately I soon got over it.)

I wonder really how that would have worked out, or would work out today. Has any black person done a reversed Rachel D.?

Im concerned that Maya is going to lose this. Although her arguments are great, and the opposings arguments are crap, I'm not entirely convinced either of them are staying relevant to the actual law in main?

I just want it on the record that I was being sarcastic

I know, I was referring to it being brought up in this case, and every other argument about the “sex is a spectrum” lie.

I heard on the radio this morning king that a state in the US has decreed that if a child writes an exam paper based on their religious teaching then they can’t be marked down.

That's that child's reality, it's true to them. Saying otherwise is offensive.

It's simply carrying on the the generation before has been taught.

How can scientific fact be offensive then? And god help any kids who move state during their education!

Im concerned that Maya is going to lose this. Although her arguments are great, and the opposings arguments are crap, I'm not entirely convinced either of them are staying relevant to the actual law in main?

It's a genuine worry and if she does, it's truly the start of the end.

I wonder really how that would have worked out, or would work out today. Has any black person done a reversed Rachel D.?

Outside of comedy I'm not sure. There was MJ but I don't think he ever claimed to be white despite radical transformation of appearance.

Lamahaha there's an episode of Atlanta with a spoof talk show that had a spoof segment on this - a black guy IDing as a white man. Amazing it got shown and wasn't treated as hate speech

How can scientific fact be offensive then?

Because the child thinks it's correct.

for a while now "Offensive and fact" have meant "what i say goes"

You have to wonder whether the lawyer for the employer really believes the shit that she's spouting.

The difficulty for Maya is that this isn't a simple case of who's morally right and wrong. There's a narrow legal test to pass, which is whether her belief in the reality of biological sex is a profoundly held philosophical belief. As outlined in the legal feminist's tweets, it has to pass five tests clarified in a previous employment tribunal, ie the belief must

be genuinely held
be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity or in conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Personally I think a belief in biological sex does pass those five tests but who knows what the judge will decide?

Companies can be legally people, can't they? You wouldn't say they were actually people, and tried to, I don't know, feed them? Leaving food outside head office?

Im concerned that Maya is going to lose this. Although her arguments are great, and the opposings arguments are crap, I'm not entirely convinced either of them are staying relevant to the actual law in main?

It's definitely a possibility. If common sense always prevailed we wouldn't have had the legal fiction in the first place.

Personally I think a belief in biological sex does pass those five tests but who knows what the judge will decide?

It does, it patently does. And the world revolves around it.

The judge would have to decide that 99% of the worlds population are wrong.

@RoyalCorgi I honestly can't see how it doesn't pass the five tests

I mean, it would open the door to be able to sue every doctor, gynaecologist, clothes maker, biology teacher, any normal person at all really.

I have been wondering if this case would be legally different if instead of a philosophical belief it was Maya’s religious belief? Would that make it more likely to be successful because religious freedom is protected?