Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

I am thrilled that the judgement is being so clearly divided as this, it just helps keep things very clear - this way we get a clear decision re GC as a protected position and a clear legal precedent moving forward. I have a feeling Maya may, quite rightly, never have to buy herself a drink ever again...also hoping she wins overall of course.

I don't think we should be thrilled by anything until we get the actual judgement. Sorry to be cynical, but I don't think we can take anything for granted.

I'm not worried. My point was about how the judgement is being handled, but also I very much doubt that the judge is going to say recognising biological sex and sex as a basis for differential treatment and needs is too harmful a viewpoint that it cannot be protected.

...not least because the Equality Act recogises this...also important to note that in a Scottish court recently it was ruled that Stuart Campbell (WoS) was not being homophobic in a joke he made, because this joke did not constitute an expression of dislike or prejudice towards gay people. Stonewall tried to argue that it was homophobic, but the court used the dictionary definition to determine whether it was nor not. I think that is a good sign of how courts will generally approach this issue. Also RC's arguments were terrible.

A massively important court case that could affect all women's lives -- and not a word about it in most of the online press since the first day.

The Guardian has a four-day-old news story, which originally got a central fact wrong and had to be corrected. Only the Times and Telegraph have updated their sites since then.

Mumsnet's coverage is invaluable. Thank you.

I am not going get much done this week, what with Maya’s case, judgement on this point, and Harry’s case. I am guessing Maya’s case could have a significant impact on Harry’s...

Thank you to everyone sharing information-agree it is shocking that it is not in the media more. Good luck Maya.

Thank you Hannaskye, that's reassuring.

Thanks for the updates. Thank goodness for MN, or else I'd not be able to read anything about my erasure.

Thank you for these threads and Mumsnet FWR in general. Huge support to Maya.

As a women in a female dominated profession that watches the often very mediocre blokes rise to the top with astonishing speed this worries me

Evening from the tech nerd. I've now archived all of the live tweet threads I could find (let me know if I've missed any).

Day 1 and 2 from @wwwritingclub here:
infantineadeliepenguin.htmlpasta.com

Day 3 from @legalfeminist here:
chuffiestkebab.htmlpasta.com

Day 3 from @KingsofLydia here:
reproachfulhalf.htmlpasta.com

(The links look weird because I've used an html uploading site which generates random urls. If someone wants to host this properly on their own website then feel free)

Object did yesterday afternoon: twitter.com/ObjectUk

Thanks to everyone who has posted on this and the first thread. Been too busy to keep up live so am extremely grateful.

Adding to the thread archive @ObjectUK's live tweets from yesterday and today:
arrowygun.htmlpasta.com

Thank you to all involved in bringing us updates. For me banned from Twitter it's been invaluable. I have been glued to this

MF and her team have been outstanding. The other side, their usual incomprehensible, tantrum chucking, whiny idiots. God help us all if they win

jumping on

The massively important court case that could affect all women's lives -- and not a word about it in most of the online press since the first day.

It should be astonishing. Shame it's not.

In reference to the discussion about gender being “assigned at birth” on the previous thread, I found this interesting article where a neurologist discusses that raising a child as “gender neutral” is actually very damaging.

www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/18/theybies-raising-alienated-babies/

Again, though, the family in that link are trying to deny not only gender (which I understand), but sex (which I don’t).

If asked, I would say I class myself as non-binary as I reject gender as a social construct. However my pronouns are she/her because I am a biological female.

I’m actually totally puzzled about why this has become so obscured and debated. People can hold whatever gender identity they choose, though there should be discussion around children’s capacity to make this choice and perhaps around where the roots of these feelings lie. I respect people’s individual gender identity, whether that’s masculine, feminine or non binary. But biological sex is just a stone cold immutable fact. And where there are clashes between gender identity and the rights attached to biological sex, why should there not be open debate without fear of punishment or harassment?

I just don’t know what to say any more.

Thanks for the link cavemum

The particularly interesting point about an identity that is not rooted but contingent on others is very relevant at the heart of this case. When ones reality and identity is contingent on others creating/affirming/maintaining it, what rights do those others have to say no? To not be compelled in involvement and service?

Hi all,
You've probably noticed that we're going through the posts on these threads 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.

Thanks in advance for bearing with us.

we think it would be sensible to refer to participants by initials only.

That's understandable, but i would point out the judge specifically stated live tweeting of events was okay.

It's not a criminal trial.

The judge allowed live tweeting from the court room (by individuals, not press).

He didn't mention any reporting restrictions.

The press have reported on this widely.

There were only 3 witnesses and Maya.

It's all a matter of public record, @MNHQ

Once you discover there are no reporting restrictions, will you put the names back, @MNHQ?

This is a historic case.

If you get rid of the names, people are less likely to find this thread by searching.

Maya's only witness was Kristina Jayne Harrison.

This is a matter of public record. Here is the Times reporting on it.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-people-scared-to-back-dissent-maya-forstater-employment-tribunal-told-nk9c6zccx

The Times says:

Kristina Jayne Harrison, a trans woman, appeared in support of Ms Forstater, and said that some trans people agreed with her views that men and women were either biologically male or female but were scared to speak out.

She said that despite coming out as a trans woman: “I do not believe it is justified to treat us as women in all circumstances, regardless of the significant detriments to women.

The Telegraph mentions Kristina in reference to Maya's trial as well

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/transgender-people-agree-using-terms-men-women-afraid-speak/

As does Pink News.

No need to initial.