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

Can anyone explain to me the relevance of the intersex argument in providing validity to trans identities? I simply don't understand how there is any relevance at all. No one is arguing that all trans people are intersex are they? So how does the existence of anomalies of biology in sexual development of the fetus hold any relevance at all for transgender?

I had the same confusion when I read an archaeologist saying that you can't always easily tell if skeletons are male or female as there is a range of skeletal dimorphism and that that therefore supported the argument for transgender people. But how? Those skeletons were people who were either men or women and we're in the vast majority of cases not confused by that or lacking a functioning set of genitals, gamete production etc. And nobody says that only tall, muscular women or slightly built men with somewhat wider hips can be trans. It's completely irrelevant, surely?

Am I being thick or what?

No you are not.

It’s bonkers

Can anyone explain to me the relevance of the intersex argument in providing validity to trans identities? I simply don't understand how there is any relevance at all. No one is arguing that all trans people are intersex are they? So how does the existence of anomalies of biology in sexual development of the fetus hold any relevance at all for transgender?

Apparently it "proves" that sex is not binary. Which somehow proves that transgender people are "real" and born that way - despite the fact they are transitioning from one half of the sex binary to the other

Honestly, these "lawyers" going on about intersex and the Daily Mail make me wonder if they got their legal training on Twitter. But, again, I guess it's because there are no arguments in favour of genderism that actually stand up.

Are vegetarians happy with being on the same side as Hitler? Important to know.

And intersex shows that all mammals have been doing sex wrong for all these millennia. Who'd have thought.

Honestly, these "lawyers" going on about intersex and the Daily Mail make me wonder if they got their legal training on Twitter

Maybe big Tone did the training.

Clearly transgender people are real.

Is it some kind of argument to say that their transition is biologically determined? That seems reductive, especially since no one states that only intersex people may transition. It is literally nonsensical to me. Disclaimer: not a biologist.

The employer's lawyer sounds like a sixth form sociology student. Not a good look.

It's the same arguments they try when they come here, Obviously somehow to them agreeing with the Mail is some kind of gottcha, We have a generation of people who are so brand loyal they have no concept of individual thought.

Isn't it like saying most people have dark or fair hair, but a few people have red hair, so that is why I as a dark haired person am biologically possibly fair haired..?

There are no better arguments to be had, but still it is embarrassing that an alleged think tank's legal team are trotting out the TRA bingo they must have culled from scrolling on twitter.

Next up - clownfish...

Pathetic.

It’s an attempt to justify the postmodernist basis of genderism. That is, if they can prove that “sex” is culturally constructed, and “gender” is also culturally constructed, then they are equally arbitrary and thus equally viable. It justifies using gender rather than sex as class.

Of course class theory at its root is based in hard materialism. There is a material reality that effects our lives even if it’s sometimes hard to describe/define/measure precisely.

I think it’s obviously true to most people that sex is more material than “gender” in any case. However genderists are trying to argue that gender is MORE material (arguments about “genital fixation” etc).

'The employer's lawyer sounds like a sixth form sociology student. Not a good look.'

That's exactly what I thought! They're wasting their money paying a solicitor for this teenage level of argument.

@MbwaKidogo I've had the intersex argument used on me quite a few times. As far as I can see it's meant to close down the avenue that "there are only 2 sexes, biologically". They are trying to draw parallels to the spectrum of sexuality and make out that you are homophobic.

The implication is that once you accept that intersex people are neither male nor female, then conversely there may be people that appear male or female but in fact are not (or are the opposite). The whole "did you know Jamie Lee Curtjs is in fact male according to her chromosomes, so chromosomes can't tell you anything about sex!"

I have been told:
"biology is much more complex than we thought, we now know there are many sexes, sex is a spectrum"

So when I pointed out that people were in fact not saying they were somewhere on a spectrum but actually claiming to be transitioning from one end of the spectrum to the other, the reaction was "no, they were ALWAYS on the "new" end of the spectrum, it's our perception of how those ends of the spectrum present that has to move with the times."

And when I have tried the "larger gametes" angle they say "oh, so you're saying a woman has to produce gametes, some women are infertile/have had a hysterectomy/ double mastectomy etc etc are you saying they're not a woman??"

FWR aaahhh, right!

Thanks for that explanation. I think I follow the argument now.

I don't agree with it though. Do people really believe that gender is fixed and sex is not?
I could see an argument that gender is fixed (would not agree but am prepared to concede. Trans people clearly have a strong feeling of gender that doesn't match their biology and I imagine that to be very distressing). But not where sex is not fixed.

Is it open to the public? I can imagine a front row of women knitting... tutting loudly at the McLawyer.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD

According to the twitter account that was live tweting there is a lot of people watching, so I assume its open.

all intents and purposes in their acquired gender'. Maya says their gender but not their sex.

Catching up; Awesome point!! Proves the fallacy of the GRA and also the fallacy of the terminology of T ideology.

Well I don't understand why the employer's lawyer hasn't just blocked Maya by now for being so hateful. That usually works doesn't it?

Wow the Daily Mail comment is very lame. Guilt by association fallacy? Good the judge slapped that down.

Comparing belief in scientific reality to belief in the Old Testament is a bit daft if you are trying to say the former doesn’t amount to a ‘belief’.

To be fair, the author of Genesis 1:27 ("Male and female he created them") appears to have his head screwed on, all the same.

(It also makes CGD Europe's assertion that the belief is "much more recent than Christianity" look a wee bit ill-informed!)

Guardian just wrote it up: www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/15/researcher-defends-tweets-on-trans-rights-at-employment-tribunal

I can’t bear to look at the guardian these days!

Do people really believe that gender is fixed and sex is not?

Absolutely! It’s why they are always talking about “brain sex” studies probing trans have “female brains” and so on.

Of course this is precisely why feminists must object. If gender roles and preferences are biologically determined then sexism is defensible.