Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

Oh. My. God.

Surprised. That it was so clean cut.

Sorry if this has already been covered but im way behind!

Ive managed to find both the Judgement and Maya's witness statement but unless the Judge invoked the rarely used regulation of making a hearing and the case 'private' everyone has a right to request full documents from the case, including OGC's submissions, has this been done?

I don't usually read the Law Section in the Times but I have stumbled across this:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-thinking-the-law-is-wrong-count-as-a-philosophical-belief-xmsg75j52?shareToken=424f4f3c017a3f33aa1cb78fab7e2188

Well that's a load of rubbish isn't it? First sentence, second paragraph says MF's belief is that gender is an immutable fact. That's the opposite of what she actually believes and has stated repeatedly. It's sex that is immutable, surely.

It repeatedly conflates sex and gender such that it actually makes no sense, and misrepresents what actually happened in court. What a mess of an article.

Thanks for the share token Igneococcus but that article is utterly infuriating!
I hope May is able to get a rebuttal published in response.

Argh, MAYA

Yes, it's infuriating, I agree.
Almost missed it entirely.

@MForstater - just a shout out to highlight the interesting post by Igneococcus

From the comments it looks like the conflation between sex and gender has vexed many, which has made me happy.
Mrs M Egrot 11 HOURS AGO
“Jonathan Sumption's confusion between sex and gender and consequent misrepresentation of Maya Forstater's case has been pointed out many times in the comments here. I look forward to the apology and correction in the Times tomorrow”

‘Scuse me if I’m making unnecessary noise

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-will-find-its-cold-outside-v2kdmr2r6?shareToken=27bf411f9c553b923d547fff86116b7e

Trevor Phillips today, advocating for Maya.

Trevor Phillips point is interesting.

I'd already wondered about the vegan ruling, in relation to Maya's case.

If veganism is a belief that is supported by law (and you cannot be fired for it) then why is the reality of biology (as a belief, that you cannot be fired for) also not supported by law too?

Although Sumption's article is muddled (in terms of referring to gender when he means sex), it seems to me that he tentatively comes out on Maya's side in the end. Did anybody else read it like that?

I like Trevor Phillips, he speaks a lot of sense, but I am surprised he finds much to admire about Peter Tatchell

Trevor Philips has been directly supportive of Maya on twitter too. Did they know each other before? I ask because there will be another similar case - Katie Alcock - also claiming gender critical feminism is a political belief and if he is fully on board with the principle I'm sure it would be good to get some public support there too.

Am I right in thinking maya was a founder for let toys be toys? (a bit off topic but I'd heard it).

Tatchell will be annoyed to read his own activism and Maya's defended together in one breath!

Yes RoyalCorgi I read Sumption's article in The Times like that. It's actually consistent with his reservations of "Law’s Expanding Empire":

www.thejusticegap.com/jonathan-sumptions-reith-lectures-laws-expanding-empire/

Italiangreyhound The reason was because the judge thought Maya's beliefs only met 4 of the 5 criteria, whereas the vegan bloke's beliefs must have met all 5. The decision that hers didn't meet no 5 - compatible with dignity and worthy of respect in a democracy (or something like that) - was I think because the judge chose not to separate the beliefs from how those beliefs could be expressed in the future. Hope she appeals.

I don't think it's true that all ethical vegan beliefs are now protected, because someone else's beliefs could be a bit different. But it will make employers err on the side of caution with vegan beliefs now I'm sure.

Katie Alcock's version if gender critical feminist beliefs could lead a judge to a different conclusion when that comes to court.

Maybe sumption would come down more firmly on her side if he got his head around the distinction between sex and gender.

I like Trevor Phillips, he speaks a lot of sense, but I am surprised he finds much to admire about Peter Tatchell.

For those of us who have been immersed in gender identity politics over the past couple of years, reading the views of columnists like Sumption, Phillips and many more who are not au fait with the details of the debate is incredibly frustrating. So not only is Phillips not, apparently, aware of Tatchell's history of supporting the rights of adults to have sex with children, he is also unaware of Tatchell's extreme hostility to gender-critical women. And he thinks, for some reason, that the judgement in the Forstater case came days after the ethical vegan one rather than weeks before. Similarly, Sumption seems unaware that Maya used protected belief as the basis of her tribunal case because it was the only one open to her given the terms of her contract. Most of us know this stuff inside out by now.

I agree RoyalCorgi. Especially about Tatchell. I thought everyone knew how he advocates for sex with children. It makes it even more worrying, because he is very vocal about the sort of sex education he thinks children should have. If people are unaware of his thoughts, it's very concerning.

Sumption’s last paragraph:

”the law does not exist to force us into conformity, but to protect us from actual harm. It is not obvious that being offended by someone else’s beliefs counts as actual harm.”

I am reminded of the FairCop judge pointing out that people don’t have the right not to be offended.

Pity about the gender error. Other than that, I thought it was reasonable comment.

Am I right in thinking maya was a founder for let toys be toys? (a bit off topic but I'd heard it).

Yes, I think so.

Trevor Philips is a director of Index of Censorship, just about the only organisation left standing. According to Jodie Ginsberg they're looking into freedom of speech at work this year.
I've always liked him. Peter Tatchell for all his faults has also stood up consistently for freedom of speech.

He did a really good programme a couple of years ago about woke activism and social media. Paris Lees was on it and came across exactly how you'd expect.

Trevor Phillips and another soundly GC male, Dave Aaronovitch, are out of the old, solid, feet-on-the-ground stable of '70's class-based Left politics that is not falling for this woke identity nonsense.

Tatchell was a respected mover-and-shaker of "gay lib" at that time. My guess is that Phillips, and others of his ilk, have been so busy with their own campaigns that they were/are not as aware as they might, or should, have been of the murky water flowing around Tatchell.

Tatchell is good on free speech but that is part of the general "freedoms" agenda that is problematic when it comes to "freedoms" for children. I think there is a bit of a blind spot with these old lefties when it comes to Tatchell that it is a bit like the issue with GC feminists and the GC position of the "religious right".

Aaronovitch is much more clued-up on GC issues - worth a follow on Twitter - but I've not been stalking him so I don't know how much better than Phillips he is on understanding the problems with Tatchell.

If Phillips can get his head properly around the facts, rather than just generally heading in the right direction, his will be a powerful voice for sanity!

MoleSmokes Has Aaronovtch published anything on this recently. Did he write about Maya's case?