Maya lost - can it be true?

[OhHolyJesus]

I'm not saying it is true - Twitter isn't known for being wedded to truth...anyone able to shed light? I thought the verdict wasn't due for a while...

twitter.com/boysvswomen/status/1207379435684585474

I notice the men in power made sure that their sons were safe from women identifying as male and taking away their rights.

Not only that, some were concerned that if a son transitioned he would have to give up the title.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the GRA bill debates and how much time was spent discussing potential impact on 1) women's safety and dignity and 2) toffs' rights.

not worthy of respect in a democratic society is such an odd thing to say. Surely the whole point of democracy is that it tolerates a range of conflicting opinions?

Isn't it pretty much what was said in the Mackereth tribunal too?

I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society

The thing is that being compelled to use pronouns that do not match biological sex creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for women and girls. Especially since the people forcing this upon them are usually XY i.e. physically more intimidating / larger. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, DO WOMEN HAVE NO EQUAL RIGHTS NOW?

In the early days of campaigning against Section 28, the early defeat in Parliament was actually instrumental in the public taking notice

Just dipping in to say that this may not feel like a positive development, but the next stage in the legal process, or the one after that could be the catalyst to bring this to much wider public attention. If they're going to start prosecuting people for stating the obvious, then this has to unravel. Legal battles amplify issues. Daylight.

This is what I said to a friend in America about Mackereth:

"A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others,"

I think it will be appealed because it’s basically compelled belief

I don’t believe in transgenderism and I do conscientiously object where I can.

I don’t believe it’s a fundamental human right for someone to lie about their sex or compel me to pretend that I believe them. In fact I think that’s pretty oppressive.

My main focus is on the impact on freedom of speech, freedom of belief and the threat to women and girls.

However, isn't this ruling also incredibly dangerous to the trans community. If people can lose their jobs for not believing that TWAW, then surely that will prevent healthcare professionals doing their jobs. If they can't ask whether a TM is pregnant or had a smear test, if they can't ask a TW about their prostate, if they can't compare blood results against the ranges for the correct sex - if they dare not do any of those things for fear of a complaint and losing their job - then medical outcomes for the trans community will surely get worse.

That he has no understanding of this very basic area of biological science is obvious. The basic science, as Maya understands it, has not changed.

Yes. The anti-science nonsense of trans ideologists (no, there isn't a single shred of credible scientific evidence to support their beliefs) makes me long for the good old days of intelligent design.

So angry.
But this judgement is not binding and it's not a legal precedent.
This is a war for freedom of speech and not a battle.
Thank you so much, Maya. If you're advised to appeal, and you can bear it, I'm right behind you. With my spade.

"WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, DO WOMEN HAVE NO EQUAL RIGHTS NOW?"

Honestly, I think that's what they're trying to make sure of.

The fuss on twitter at labour saying they would preserve single sex spaces, just before the election? Caused outrage. We are not allowed any rights or spaces that males cannot identify into.

For example, the attached screenshot was retweeted by Clair Quentin, with this "Wow! A deeply cynical transphobic dog-whistle in the Labour manifesto. Really disappointing, because it confirms that the T3RF element in Labour is powerful enough to need placating." on their public twitter feed.

No spaces for females allowed anymore. People who are biological males have said so.

I'm going out tomorrow to buy a much bigger spade. Nobody is getting a Christmas present. All my money is going into digging.

*So let's look at Judge James Tayler. He's listed as a "Diversity and Community Relations" Judge. So, he's already self-selected and put himself forward for an area which is focused on diversity and community relations. His brief, I would think, is to promote diversity and encourage community relations in his judgments.

To accept that biological sex and men and women exist, in 2019, would not fit the diversity or community agenda of his employers.*

Surely this has to be the most 'logical' explanation for the absurdity of this judgement. My concern would be who would hear an appeal, another diversity relations judge? The realisation that some judges can make judgements in this way is terrifying. I am worried about the other possible test cases in the pipelines.

I only came across Maya's case towards the end of the tribunal hearing, as I'm relatively new to these boards. Just want to say you also have my full support Maya and should you need some spades then you can have some of mine.

Reading GG 3 decades ago, that line from GG really stood out @AutumnRose1. It's never resonated more so than now.

I know this won't be uppermost in most people's concerns, what with the ugly implications for democracy and women's rights, but...

There are a very few small transwomen charities around who work with TW on their numerous health issues. (You get a lot of secondary illnesses from the hormones and the surgeries don't stick long term.)

I doubt the people who work bloody hard for nothing to give TW specific health advice on specific TW health issues will be pleased to hear they'll be losing their grants because TWAW. They'll be horrified.

If they think they can force us to do anything they have another think coming.

So we live in a world, now, where women who understand the fact that males are not, and never can be, females, can be compelled to speak lies under the threat of sacking.

That's it for me. I'm done. The cult can take my kids. They can take your kids. They will take every single right women and girls have. It's a done deal.

This is the backlash. We got 100 years of society being forced to consider us as human; now males and the women who choose to serve males have found a way to halt that progress.

I honestly believe that, as a woman, my only protection is likely to come from the Church I left decades ago, as an atheist. It's a very limited protection, but it's better than nothing. I will have rights to freedom of speech if protected by religion that I won't have as a woman.

I can't tolerate thinking about what this judge has said to and about Maya. It's unbearable. It's violence against her, just as much as if he'd struck her in the face. He's taken her integrity and ground it into dust with his heel.

The hatred is overwhelming.

It sits above every single post in this secion - women, you will be punished if you speak truth, and if someone complains, we will shun you. That's what the guidelines say. Do not speak truth if it offends. Material truth is subservient to the freedom from offence, and this freedom is granted only to a select few.

Women are stateless.

We are heading into a new Dark Ages.

My heart goes out to Maya.
This is an unjust ruling.
Justice was not served today.

I don't know if the mods are reading.
But if they are, I hope they are as scared as we are.

Each little concession, little lie, little compelled courtesy. Each forbidden fact, forbidden reality, forbidden term.
They don't help stem the flow. They aren't keeping a balance of rights.

They are normalising judgements like today.
From a web forum deciding they should ban posters for saying a man is a man, to a judge pointing out that society should legally compel women to call men women, under threat of legal sanction.

You have to model the result you want to see, not leave the truth to the bravest few who dare to be characterised as extreme or absolutists.

Please. Be braver. Let truth be the norm, and courage.

The judge quoted my Rohypnol essay in his judgement as evidence that Maya retweeted 'transphobic material'.
The essence of what I wrote was that compelling people to use language that is a lie, that misrepresents what we know to be true, harms us. Forcing people to lie is inhumane and wrong.

But the judge concluded this:
, I consider requiring the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman is justified to avoid harassment of that person

He ruled that we should all be compelled to say "this is a woman" if the man in front of us demands it, or we shall be punished for illegal harassment.

I believe this judgement will be overturned in due course. I do.

But if ever there was a time to be braver and model the free society we wish to live in, the laws we want to protect our human rights, and the right to speak the truth without fear, this is the time for it.

Please, @MNHQ, model on this forum the freedom of speech and belief you want us to preserve in the UK.

@smileylottie87 none taken! It's a difficult document to read, because, quite apart from the legalese, you're going "Yup, yup, logical, sensible," and then you get to his conclusion "WTAF!!!" The cognitive dissonance just 🤯

Janes "This is the backlash. We got 100 years of society being forced to consider us as human; now males and the women who choose to serve males have found a way to halt that progress.

I honestly believe that, as a woman, my only protection is likely to come from the Church I left decades ago, as an atheist. It's a very limited protection, but it's better than nothing. I will have rights to freedom of speech if protected by religion that I won't have as a woman."

I feel this too.

re church, tbh I wouldn't think of that as protection. I am an atheist who joined a church relatively recently - long story - and I had to reject some which I thought would be better suited to me because of their....er....inclusivity.

however, one of the reasons I asked if anyone thought that religion might have altered this judgement is ....if anything I have said about biology ever gets used against me at work, I was wondering if being a regular churchgoer might be part of a defence!

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!!!!

What Ereshkigal said!

I was re-reading 1984 recently...

Y'know, in the 'how many fingers?' passage, they're not torturing Winston into saying there are five fingers not four, they actually need him to believe there are however many fingers they tell him there are.

Nothing to see here, move along.

It's interesting how it only matters if behaviour of one person towards another violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment if the person affected is XY male.

I mean somehow the judge has created a judgement which only cares if XX humans 'violate the dignity' of the XY kind of humans. Somehow, despite XY women being EXACTLY THE SAME AS ALL OTHER WOMEN they get special treatment in law. Apparently by saying they are women they ARE in law in ALL ways EXCEPT when it comes to how they're treated in this judgement. Maya doesn't get to have the fact that non-sex based pronouns violate her dignity and create an intimidating and humiliating environment for her even considered. I mean, she lost her job, you couldn't really get more intimidating or hostile than that. This judgement couldn't be more intimidating to all women and girls, and yet... consideration of that somehow is COMPLETELY ABSENT from the judgement.

The judge has violated MY dignity and/or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment FOR ME through this judgement which somehow claims XY women are the same as all other women and yet says we can't treat them in the same way as he is treating Maya (and by extension all XX women). And yet seemingly is completely utterly blind to this irony.

That is one big fat shit show of a judgment. Word salad tied up with a rainbow ribbon.

Fuck that. We're all getting a little bit cross now.

Yes Barracker perfectly put.