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

You’ve a beautiful healthy baby!
Is it a boy or a girl?
Hang on... ummm, not sure, could be... if you wait a few years they will tell you themselves...

You have all forgot the miracle that a baby even exists at all when there is just no way to know how to make them in the first place!

The proposal to remove sex from birth certificates is in the UCU trans rights documents. It's not being done for anyone other than trans identifiers. It has no other purpose and its entirely led and driven by trans academics and supporters.

They are not supporting this for the benefit anyone else. They will deny it has any negative impact on anyone else. They are unable to articulate any benefits for anyone else.

Good luck, Maya! You're doing this for all of us.

The assigning sex thing really melts my brain. If sex could be assigned then India and China, for example, would not need to chuck baby girls on rubbish heaps. They could have as many boys as they wanted.

This is hideous. I have lost all tolerance for this shit.

Think how different English history would have been if Henry eighth had been able to assign his daughters male.

Or if Catherine of Aragorn could have transitioned to become a man, she might have annulled her marriage herself and kept her head. Or Mary Queen of Scots who was raped, fell pregnant, and married her rapist as the least worst of two terrible options.

There are things that we have in common because of our sex, regardless of race and wealth.

I mean MQoD would not have been raped if she'd self-ided as a man, right? Right? Oh wait, transmen are vaginally raped...

Hi all,
You've probably noticed that we're going through the posts on this thread to tidy up references to witnesses by name etc.

There are general reporting restrictions around cases like this and - although we're not completely clear on what can and can't be said as yet - we think it would be sensible to refer to participants by initials only.

We might even temporarily suspend the thread overnight just to be sure that it's squeaky clean.

Of course you can all still post about the issues raised by this case, but it seems wise to err on the side of caution with regards to identifying those involved.

@MichaelMumsnet this is a public hearing and there are no specific reporting restrictions around identification of the witnesses. The judge also ruled at the outset that live tweeting was acceptable.

MichaelMumsnet I'd just like to reiterate what Tit says, there are no reporting restrictions on this tribunal, as per the Judge. He allowed live-tweeting from the courtroom and quoted "open justice" as being paramount.

It would be extremely unfair to restrict access to this thread - when the Judge has said the above.

But I've no doubt our "monitors" are over here reporting it all. How very sad for them. This info is in the public domain, and the Judge has ruled it public.

The witnesses have not been given anonymity - this is a matter of public interest.

Bed67th
Catherine of Aragon wasn't beheaded, her marriage was annulled so that the English court could keep her dowry.
If she had self identified as a man then she could have kept all her money and seen off Henry the Eighth
Divorced Catherine of Aragon
Beheaded Ann Boleyn
Died Jane Seymour
Divorced Anne of Cleves
Beheaded Katherine Howard
Survived Catherine Parr
Useful in a quiz information

Rather pointed of the whole point of this case that there are people busy making HQ dance to try and silence as much of it as possible. What on earth for? Not talking about it really doesn't make it go away.

Annulled murdered died annulled murdered survived, I've seen it written as, @Butterisbest

And yes all the hearing has been open and public, @MichaelMumsnet - it has been live tweeted for three days I think

@MichaelMumsnet this is not a criminal case, there are no reporting restrictions and all participants are a matter of public record and have been reported on in the MSM.

This makes your actions look heavy handed and agenda driven.

But I've no doubt our "monitors" are over here reporting it all.

I think it’s probably worth repeating for MNHQ that references to the monitors are not references to transpeople or men or any specific class of people, but purely to the people who have openly expressed their intention to keep close track of the FWR threads & report all the posts they don’t like.

@MNHQ why are you falsifying the record of contemporaneous tweets that have been specifically allowed by a judge in the interest of open justice?

@MichaelMumsnet
Your 'tidying up' has made my posts from the tribunal unreadable. 'C' is the initial used for the Claimant in legal proceedings. It therefore looks from my posts like it is Maya 'speaking' rather than Clair Quentin.
I was at the tribunal when the Respondent employer's counsel asked for restrictions on live-posting from non-journalists. The Respondent's counsel claimed that the Respondent's witnesses were particularly vulnerable although when the judge asked she put forward no ground to substantiate this. The judge refused the Respondent's request and made it clear that members of the public could live-post. The witness statements with the witnesses' full names were available for members of the public at the tribunal to read.
I'm posting this on both threads.

Shhh - stop spreading sunlight on this! Dangerous to let people see what's really going on?

Live tweeting was very much allowed. Someone else here doesn't want the information to get out

Have you considered who that might be, who is manipulating your site for those purposes?

@MNHQ the Times and Telegraph have already named Maya Forstater, her employer, both barristers, and all witnesses except the last (and that omission is likely to be more an issue of filing deadlines than any privacy issue). There seems to be little point in you wasting your time removing references to anyone other than, possibly, the last witness.

[update] This thread has had all names reinstated. Thanks for bearing with us.
Here's a link to the second thread (continuing the discussion from this one).