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

In the meantime, there is now a Scottish GRA consultation out. Surely this is now in danger if women cannot openly feed into this consultation for fear of being sacked.

Could also be tactical on part of the judge. There are other examples, for instance the no-fault divorce law, where the judges came up with a ludicrous but legally correct decision which eventually forced a change in the law. If he had let her win, this is the lowest level of court and would not have set any precedent. If it’s appealed higher it at least has a chance of actually setting policy.

The gay cake case went all the way to the Supreme Court despite defeats and clarified the position (which includes that people cannot be compelled into belief, even where this affects a protected minority). I am more positive about it now.

And in case anyone is tempted, writing letters of complaints about the judge doesn’t help. Helping to fund an appeal might do though.

Wow. Just wow. I've only just caught up with all the posts on this thread.
Absolutely gobsmacked by the ruling and I wouldn't blame Maya if she felt she couldn't bear to go further with this.

However, I will have my spare ready if she does decide to pursue an appeal.

I'm hoping the ruling leaves ample room for appeal as some have suggested here and that the media and other legal experts will step in and expose how truth, scientific facts and freedom of speech are being systematically undermined by the trans lobby at every turn.

Could also be tactical on part of the judge

Given that the language of the lobby permeates the ruling; assigned at birth, reference to ‘biological opinion increasingly moving away from a (sic) absolutist approach’ etc, I find that unlikely

n the meantime, there is now a Scottish GRA consultation out. Surely this is now in danger if women cannot openly feed into this consultation for fear of being sacked.
Important point, Birdsfoot.

"Trump impeached"

"Maya lost"

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1197316836062158848

"Belief" in EqA does not preclude being based on fact. The case law (Grainger) is climate change. A man who believed it is both real AND critical we act on it. I believe that sex is real, binary & immutable (because it is!) & important to recognise (for fairness, feminism etc..)"

That's how I understood Maya's argument. Her case was based, not on her belief that sex exists, but that it matters that it exists.

So the judge has basically said I don't believe that sex is dimorphic but, even if it is, your belief that it's important for women to take dimorphic sex into account when making public policy might upset some men so it's not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Women must never hurt the feelings of men in a democratic society.

I've got that right, right?

"If you are going through hell.....keep going"
Winston Churchill.

Or

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going"

Billy Ocean

I've often wondered if it would ever come to the point where I, as a mother who gave birth to a daughter, would be forced by law to call her my son.

Is this ruling really saying that no one can 'manifest' their GC beliefs, because they might hurt someone's feelings?

Remember though that with the exception of seriously deluded people that very few actually believe that humans can change sex, even if they claim to be woke. Despite the use of language, I doubt this judge privately believes this total nonsense.

A win in an appeal would also wipe the smug smirk off the faces of all the total wankers on twitter who have been quoting paragraphs of this judgement as if it was delivered by the Supreme Court rather than a lowly ET judge. Losers.

Sister many parents have been forced to refer to daughters as sons. It would only happen if your girl decided she was a boy though so make sure you keep her grounded and critical. Remember that logic and rationality will eventually win out because this shit is based on such a flimsy foundation that it will eventually crumble.

It is purely insane. If anyone years ago held the views of Judge James Tayler they would have been committeed to the asylum. We are talking about judicial-backed insanity.

"If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something [Miss Forstater] is entitled to ignore."

If the law tells me that the moon is cheese, I have every right to ignore that. I do not have to buy into this insanity. I may have to keep my mouth shut, but Judge James Tayler and the law cannot control my mind.

I will regard every man who claims to be a woman, as a man.
My mind will treat them as that.

I can ignore their legal status as much as I damn well want.

Maya, keep going. We are behind you. They are the asylum. Judge James Tayler could not have come to any other ruling because of his position and bias - he is a Community Relations and Diversity Judge for crying out loud.

SisterWendy

It's quite terrifying, isn't it?
Enough to drive a mother mad.
They can never make us not know the truth, though.

Unfortunately my darling girl believes she is a man and is medically transitioning.

Though I wouldn't call her by her birth name and would try to avoid using any pronouns around her, I can never - NEVER - call her my son.

I've been down the road of losing my mind over this, and I'm not going there again.

for Maya.

Gutted. However I agree with the person above whose name begins with L - sorry it was way back - that this was a strange approach. I contributed to the Crowdfunder, and they emailed before the prelim to set out their thinking re belief, and it wasn’t the way I would have gone. Now bear in mind I was an employment lawyer but haven’t practiced for a few years so probably rusty. However if Maya was my client I would have advised her to go for a straight unfair dismissal case so that her employers would have had to establish that the reason for her dismissal was a fair one. The rebuttal of this would have been easier than establishing a protected belief.

Good comments so far on the Daily Mail.

Lang, and Kathleen Stock has added:

I suppose what makes it confusing is that people naturally assume if a belief is true, and about observable fact, it doesn’t need legally protecting, because no one would question it on massive scale. But as we now know...

Observable fact = biological sex exists as a binary.

A judge has ruled that women - anyone- can be disciplined or sacked for expressing a belief in the observable fact that biological sex matters?

This has to be appealed. I'll be there with my spade...

Interesting in the DM article that Wagner says there may be a potential for a challenge to this:

"He said that it was 'difficult to say' whether the ruling would be upheld, adding: 'The judge has gone very far in trying to resolve a number of very controversial issues and he's also potentially gone beyond the remit of this hearing -which was about just looking at the belief, rather than the manifestations of the belief.'"

RealityNotEssentialism said....
"Remember though that with the exception of seriously deluded people that very few actually believe that humans can change sex, even if they claim to be woke. Despite the use of language, I doubt this judge privately believes this total nonsense."

From my experience apart from a vague knowledge of wokey wankiness (mostly thanks to Piers Morgan rants in the morning)the majority of people don't even know the half of what's going on with regards to Gender reform and are gobsmacked when you explain to them.

SisterWendy. Poor girl. I hope she will come to her senses in time. I am given hope by the rise in the numbers of de-transitioners. Accepting yourself for who you are rather than trying your best to fool others that you are something else is always the best route.

From my experience apart from a vague knowledge of wokey wankiness (mostly thanks to Piers Morgan rants in the morning)the majority of people don't even know the half of what's going on with regards to Gender reform and are gobsmacked when you explain to them.

Exactly - and that's why it's so concerning that changes are being made without a proper national discussion.

We know that the aim is to push things through in stealth.

I am going to self ID as a man and will encourage all females I know to do so as well. I'm going to call myself a nice neutral name and continue to use female spaces

You don't need to change your name, under trans ideology you can present and name yourself exactly as you currently do, you can just require others to use whatever language you demand. I think it may come to this: a mass of women identifying out of oppression and into privilege by saying the magic words.

I think there will also need to be a repeat of the I am Spartacus movement that was seen on MN, just via the general public in the way that #metoo worked. We believe in reality. Come and get us.

Children they always seem to know the difference when it comes to their own families and dating lives. I have seen precisely zero woke blokes date or be remotely interested in a trans woman or trans man (depending on their sexual orientation). So many of them also seem to be able to talk about their sons and daughters as if that was a biological fact rather than some nebulous identity too.

And further on a mass protest of women identifying as men: if you're faced with a hospital ward you don't feel safe in, or a place you can't change in, announcing that you're a TM will not only get you listened to but sympathetically provided with a separate place as you wish. Announcing you're a female who is deeply uncomfortable/has a right to belief is going to get you arrested.

Which would any sane person choose?

How about a mass walk-in of real women into men's toilets (yuk I know), men's changing rooms, London's gentleman's clubs (oooh what's going to happen with their admission policies now eh?) etc?