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

@ObjectUK
#IstandwithMaya
Employer's lawyer has just asked how we can know what sex anyone is.
@MForstater explained calmly and patiently.

Apparently in 2019 nobody can recognise the sex of anyone. These questions are ludicrous but I assume it's all they've got to work with.

I could see an argument that gender is fixed

How would such an argument account for detransitioners, NBs, Phillip/Pippa Bunce? All of whom are or were trans.

Me neither! Can you summarise?

Sorry - that awash referring to guardian article

@ObjectUK
#IstandwithMaya
Employer's lawyer has just asked how we can know what sex anyone is.
@MForstater explained calmly and patiently.

Jesus wept. It like the lights are on but no one is home with these people.

Does anyone know who the judge is?

'How comfortable are you bring on the same side as the Daily Mail?'
Employer's lawyer has just asked how we can know what sex anyone is.

I cannot imagine how I would feel if I had spent shitloads of money on legal representation only to find that these were the best arguments they could manage.

So impressed by Maya Forstater. Thanks for the thread.

Haven’t read through all the thread but she does have a crowd funding page for her court fees.
Can’t do links, sorry
She needs £66,000 or more

First sentence of the Guardian article:

A researcher who lost her job at a charity after tweeting that transgender women should not have a legal right to change sex

I don't think she said that, did she?

Floisme you mistake them. They believe these are excellent, unbeatable arguments. After all, some people they like agree with them! And only some annoying women and right wing bigots disagree. So it has to be correct.

OldCrone Not in those words.

I guess They are twisting her saying that she doesn’t agree that one should get a GRC by simple Self ID as meaning “she doesn’t believe transwomen should be able to change legal sex.”

ooh, this is promising from the Graun article

She has been supported by Index on Censorship. Its chief executive, Jodie Ginsberg, has said previously: “From what I have read of [Forstater’s] writing, I cannot see that Maya has done anything wrong other than express an opinion that many feminists share – that there should be a public and open debate about the distinction between sex and gender.”

That sentence I just quoted from the Guardian is actually nonsense. I misread it as "transgender women should not have a right to change legal sex", and I thought they were implying that she had lost her job because she had said the GRA should be repealed.

But of course they don't have a "legal right to change sex", because it's impossible to change sex, and she wasn't discussing whether people should have a legal right to carry out an impossible act.

It a typical Guardian article isn't it, it should be call the Daily Rag of the middle class.

This thread makes me wish I was in the court. Sounds like Maya was on cracking form today.

Whoever made that quip about the judge being a MNer, I have no doubt a casual google of Maya’s name would have pulled a few apposite FWR threads.

How comfortable are you bring on the same side as the Daily Mail?'
Employer's lawyer has just asked how we can know what sex anyone is

This is a really stupid line of questioning to take - the judge could be a daily mail reader. It suggests how much they are in a bubble.

Floisme, you mistake them. They believe these are excellent, unbeatable arguments. After all, some people they like agree with them! And only some annoying women and right wing bigots disagree. So it has to be correct.

Lurker, you know, I actually think that must be the thinking. It’s so lame, it’s so irrelevant to the case, it’s only function is to give the usual suspects a two minute hate opportunity against the same old target

I can't believe they are trotting out those arguments. I mean intersex, clownfish, apartheid, we've heard them all before as nonsensical justification to say men can change sex.

But the Daily Mail?

How the fuck do they know what paper the judge even reads?

And they're a think tank aren't they???

Seriously, any potential customers listening to this embarrassing nonsense will think they've had a lucky escape.

Its (stupid autocorrect)

I think you were right the first time OldCrone, that is what they were implying.

A researcher who lost her job at a charity after tweeting that transgender women should not have a legal right to change sex

I think this is defamatory.

Datun, it’s just extraordinary. Who is the barrister?

From what we have read here, this is going to set a really important precedent. Thank you Maya plus assorted diggers for resisting and persisting.

But of course they don't have a "legal right to change sex", because it's impossible to change sex, and she wasn't discussing whether people should have a legal right to carry out an impossible act.

Maybe it's like Loretta's right to have babies in Life of Brian? It's symbolic.

I think this is defamatory.

Yes. Whether they mean "have a legal right to change sex" or "have a right to change legal sex" doesn't matter. It isn't what she said. In that first sentence they totally misrepresent what the case is about.

The employer's barrister is Jane Russell, from Essex Court Chambers.

I've just got home from watching Maya give evidence this morning and this afternoon. She was a superb witness: well-prepared, patient and reasonable. I can say to everyone who contributed to Maya's crowdfunder, whether she wins or loses, it is money well spent. Maya took every opportunity to articulately put across the gender critical point of view and need for women's spaces and sports. All the journalists that were present means those views will now get a wider audience.