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

twitter.com/elleandback/status/1207252599692578816?s=21

This sort of thing exposes their utter hypocrisy. They know full well that there are two sexes when it suits them.

I've just dug an angry hole in the hope Maya takes this to appeal.

It's occurred to me this morning, to wonder whether trans widows could be sacked for refusing to believe our husbands / ex husbands are women, and the implications of this for coercive control.

Yes Tinsel

If the law tells me that the moon is cheese, I have every right to ignore that.

“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

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?

I'm up for this. Since having children I don't wear makeup, dresses or shave my legs so according to trans rhetoric I'm at least non-binary if not actually a man (still breastfeeding and menstruating though....)

I don't really understand this ruling.

Firstly, it's not clear at all that people with a GRC are entitled to be recognised as the gender they have adopted in all circumstances. The allowance of single sex spaces as set out in the Equalities Act contradicts it. Isn't this contradiction the entire basis of discussion about GRA reform? As an aside, the fact that a GRC is a Gender Recognition Certificate, as opposed to a Sex Recognition Certificate further undermines this "for all purposes and in all circumstances" argument, because there are certain circumstances and purposes where sex as opposed to gender is the defining criterion.

Secondly, Forstater expressly informed the tribunal that she referred to people by their preferred pronouns and no evidence was brought to rebut this. So again this contradicts the part of the ruling that says her views prevent her from referring to people as they wish to be referred to because even though she holds the views she does this hasn't stopped her from using whatever pronouns are required.

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

Here’s Lord Tebbit back in 2004 on the GR Bill. It’s from one of TimeLady’s excellent links. It’s quite fascinating that the trajectory from there to this point, with its implications of compelled thought and speech, was recognized by some who objected at the time.

The Bill requires members of a gender recognition panel, on the production of certain evidence, in broad terms to certify that a person who was born a woman, who lived as a woman, married as a woman, and has borne children as a woman, is, despite all that, entitled to be issued with a birth certificate falsely professing that she was born as a male child. That cannot be anything other than a lie. It was lie that the state would require its servants, such as the Registrar General, to certify as the truth

Correction

It is a lie that the state would require its servants

How about we all start with Marks and Spencer.

The same Marks and Spencer who told me that their changing rooms are "gender neutral" and therefore the recent scandal of them allowing men into women's changing rooms wasn't news because there is no such thing as women's changing rooms.

Yet every store has massive signs pointing to gender SPECIFIC changing rooms.

Let's flood their male changing rooms with women. Just before Christmas. That'll be nice for them.

The Judge I think is VERY transphobic.

He says there is literally no difference between TW and W. We MUST NOT notice any difference. Yet, he does.

Misgendering = 'hostile and intimidating' environment to an XY type of woman - must not do, compelled speech if necessary - such a terrible thing to do it's actually incompatible with acceptable behaviour in a democracy.

Losing one's job for one's belief in scientific reality, being forced to lie under oath and compelled to lie in all other situations = magically ISN'T more hostile and intimidating than the above if it's a XX woman.

So, he himself is not treating TW as women. TRANSPHOBIC!

It's occurred to me this morning, to wonder whether trans widows could be sacked for refusing to believe our husbands / ex husbands are women, and the implications of this for coercive control.

Same thought occurred to me.

I'm no legal expert but I'm seeing and pondering on the argument being based on 'belief' more than I did before.

I think it may have been a better tactic to argue it based on fact. Intersex conditions do not make you between sexes and a trans woman is not intersex.

We can decide not to believe in facts but nevertheless they still exist. The earth is round, gravity makes things fall to the ground etc.

Holding a personal belief like religion or trusting facts shouldn't get you fired but a fact is a fact is a fact. (That thing Gervais said about all scientific experiments being done in thousands of years time with the results remaining the same makes sense.)

Maya didn't even misgender someone. This ruling is a travesty, but if it goes to a higher court then that is no bad thing, it will get more exposure, more public interest and it would go before a different judge.

Indeed yeah I mean the very name transgender indicates that they are not the same as biological women. Everyone knows what a transwoman is but it’s now becoming illegal to say it. The problem is that this is not sustainable. Bodily differences are relevant in so many contexts and it’s simply not possible to have a society that sees no difference whatsoever between xx and xy people. No society has managed that ever and even animals display sex-based differences. So even if woman now means ‘person who likes pink’ in the eyes of the woke, there will eventually need to be a new word to describe the xx persons.

Same thought occurred to me

Lang Tinsel
That is a very grim scenario. I hope Maya challenges this ruling because the implications if it stands are dismal

It's occurred to me this morning, to wonder whether trans widows could be sacked for refusing to believe our husbands / ex husbands are women, and the implications of this for coercive control.

That's a very important point.

Lang Cleg: One thing though: I will never submit.

There's a whole poem about it by Iris Child

what if truth becomes a crime?
would you say it, given time?

what if I hit you in the head?
what if I claim you want me dead?

would you say it for a judge?
why oh why will you not budge?
...
not for your please
not on my knees
not to a judge
I will not budge
...
I will not say it just for you
I will not say what isn't true
I will not say it from a jail

I will always know you're ...

Maya didn't even misgender someone.

Gregor Murray. Who identified as the first trans person elected to public office in Scotland.
It's that magic word. You can be a bearded man who calls women cunts, get under the trans umbrella and instantly become the victim.

If as TRAs argue, sex isn't binary, then why are we forced to categorise people into the boxes of men and women? Surely a man who transitions should have legal recognition as a trans woman (NOT as a woman.)

That is fair to both sexes and trans people, and does not create legal fiction.

Thanks for posting that Arran.

Judge Tayler concluded: “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 [Ms Forstater] is entitled to ignore. [Ms Forstater’s] position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society

Telegraph reporting it and quoting judge. It really is astonishing

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/18/test-case-rules-against-tax-expert-sacked-transgender-tweet/

Aaahg just read the comments under that daily mail article. She was not sacked for stating her beliefs. She was sacked for stating facts. Or do we not have facts any more?

I wish R4 had interviewed Rosa Freedman rather than Adam Wagner:

Para 84 deeply problematic -- GRC creates legal fiction not a right (the legal fiction enables people to access their existing rights). Also judge doesnt seem to understand concept of dignity in law (as opposed to dignity in ordinary / colloquial language).

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1207570401930428416

Twitter thread of Adam Wagner

twitter.com/AdamWagner1?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor