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

Wow, Justhadathought. That is quite something. Do they not know the history of bookburning, generally

There seems to be a whole generation out there who doesn't know the history of much at all: feminism, liberation struggles of one sort or other.....after all, it all happened before they were born.

JK Rowling. Fantastic! As if I needed more excuses to buy Harry Potter stuff. Wonderful wonderful woman. Thank you JK.

There seems to be a whole generation out there who doesn't know the history of much at all: feminism, liberation struggles of one sort or other.....after all, it all happened before they were born.

This is the most worrying thing is my opinion.

"thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned"

So if a transwoman presents with clinical symptoms of prostate cancer, she has to be treated as a woman i.e. prostate cancer completely ruled out as a possible diagnosis because the patient is a woman. Yes? If not, why not?

Also #IstandwithMaya now a worldwide trend on Twitter, in case anyone is watching.

yay, it is trending! Thank you JK!

I can't be arsed reading Penis News right now but I will later.

mobile.twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1207658696370794497

Sharron Davies comments

What is this all about, I wonder??

1 Oct 2012 - FOI Request to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service: "Cases Judge J Tayler sat on/Chaired from 4th to 8th April 2011"

"I am requesting that you provide me with information from the London Central Employment Tribunal and/or their sources, for example, Courtel, of cases which were dealt with by Judge J. Tayler, between the 4th to 8th April 2011."

Mentioned in later correspondence on the FOI request:

8 Nov 2012:

"I have been awaiting your response or the forwarding of my matter for review for the past 3 weeks, for which the deadline is today. It is most dubious when requests are made and suddenly matters become side-stepped, ignored, not important or receive a non-response. Is there any likeness here to how matters were dealt with when respective Complainants made allegations regarding Jimmy Saville? There appears to be something endemic in the society to ensure that matters of a certain nature and not dealt with appropriately."

I cannot make much sense of the FOI Request and the complete response and haven't got time at the moment to try to unravel it.

There seems to be a whole generation out there who doesn't know the history of much at all: feminism, liberation struggles of one sort or other.....after all, it all happened before they were born.

They seem to be both ignorant and stupid. All those people tweeting their delight at the judge's ruling, with comments like "this gives employers the right to sack bigots" apparently can't get their tiny brains around the concept of freedom of speech: that you might disagree with what someone says, but you respect their right to say it.

More to the point, if employers are allowed sack people whose opinions are unfashionable, today it might be Maya Forstater, but tomorrow it might be them. They really are incredibly dim.

I saw that too and can't make head nor tail of it. Presumably an individual with a grudge of some sort?

Tayler J's ruling here is inconsistent with other rulings he's made re sex discrimination. I mean, he's said that it's sex discrimination to treat a pregnant woman differently for reasons of pregnancy, so how does he square this with it being discriminatory to distinguish between men and women on the basis of biological sex classification?

I really think that this is an assault to freedom of speech and beliefs. However, I do believe that people should be accountable in the workplace for being kind towards others and not deliberately misgendering someone. This should just be a general requirement to help foster and inclusive working environment regardless of gender, race, size, disability, religion etc. I can see both view points but feel as though it does damage freedom of speech and women's rights.

However, I do believe that people should be accountable in the workplace for being kind towards others and not deliberately misgendering someone.

Women have been kind, and look what happened. Self id would be a done deal without women like Maya speaking out.

I've just caught up with theclip on the Today programme commenting on this judgement.

It is really serious - people like me could lose their jobs.

And it's all based on the assumption that women are absolutely equal and not oppressed any more

Can someone please direct me to the magic land where patriarchy does not systematically oppress women?

The thing that I keep coming back to, time and again, is not lavatories or who has sex with whom (although those things are really important). It's that a minority group of men (like this Judge) are forcing women to accept a fundamental and world-changing definition of "woman" over which we actual women have not been consulted; and when we do ask questions we are shouted down, physically attacked, and sacked.

Because transpeople are more oppressed and transpeople's feelings have to be protected from nasty women thinking they can define their own existence ie biology.

I haven't been this deeply pessimistic about the future of women and feminism since I read Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will as a 16 year old.

Oh, and as far as I can see, on average 2 women a week are murdered by their domestic partners/ex-partners, and the rape conviction rate is still at around 2%.

So oyes, women are equal and free and not oppressed. Oh no no no no

However, I do believe that people should be accountable in the workplace for being kind towards others

So the man who said to me that he "didn't think women could be professors" was being? Kind - saving me from myself.

This really is bullshit.

Of course we should all be kind, polite, collegial. But maybe men might start behaving in that way? Why is it a woman's responsibility?

Dolorabelle
However, I do believe that people should be accountable in the workplace for being kind towards others

Yes, I agree. But respect is something for me to decide to give. In the same way as Judge James Tayler today decided unilaterally that he didn't think Maya's view deserved respect. It's his to give. Well, Tayler, it's mine to give too.

Use of pronouns is words which are my choice to use. Sometimes I may use a pronoun which does not match their BIOLOGICAL SEX about an individual because I consider it easier/kinder to do that.

But that person cannot demand what language I use. If you dictate to me that I must call them the Queen and her Majesty, it is no less delusional. I will not do it. The other person cannot demand it, the state cannot demand it. I will refuse at every single turn.

I would expect the dysphoric individual to show kindness to me too. Let me use the language which is natural, commonplace, and if you're a bloke with a beard and dick, bleeding obvious.

The other person cannot demand it, the state cannot demand it. I will refuse at every single turn

It is compelled speech. What’s interesting is that every day, the authoritarian agenda and obsessive need to control language becomes more explicit. The more this is exposed, the more resistance there will be

Delorabelle
Yes. I think it's time women stood up as a group and raised a case against erasure of women.

All current legislation seems to be swept aside in order to discriminate against women.

I was horrified at reading the tribunal transcript and its centring around beliefs instead of science and facts.

After going to bed feeling really shocked last night, now I've had time to read and think about it I feel this could be a good thing. There's clearly a lot here to be queried: it seems a very fragile judgment and easily-challenged judgment and an appeal will help shed further light and give journalists more and more to write about.

That will give no comfort to Maya, I know. I've been through a long and drawn out and hideously expensive court case and I know what it does to you. But I didn't have Mumsnet and JK Rowling on my side.

Whoever thought we'd be quoting Norman Tebbit approvingly?

Whoever thought we'd be quoting Norman Tebbit approvingly?

thatdamnwoman

You know what I find amazing? That was 15 years ago. It was an uncontroversial view, widely accepted. Which politician of any party would be brave enough to make that statement today? A belief in biological sex is incompatible with human dignity? We live in interesting times...,

Hello,
Just want to say thank you to the thread, to know one in particular but everyone, after a very depressing result, I feel encouraged specifically from this thread that the appeal, should it go ahead, could win, and then have more of an influence.

I have avoided Twitter/Social media since learning about the result. So depressing. But it isn't over till it's over.

^ know one duuh

Whoever thought we'd be quoting Norman Tebbit approvingly?

He actually spoke - and still writes - a lot of truth and good sense.

I was horrified at reading the tribunal transcript and its centring around beliefs instead of science and facts.

This is because belief is what's in the Equality Act that Maya was using - there is no relevant law in relation to discrimination around facts, though you could now argue that there should be!

All those people tweeting their delight at the judge's ruling, with comments like "this gives employers the right to sack bigots" apparently can't get their tiny brains around the concept of freedom of speech...

Or, back with Robert Bolt and A Man For All Seasons again:

“So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

“Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

“Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Interesting that a transwomen lost their case against the Times at an employment tribunal. They claimed that the Times publishing 'transphobic articles' created a toxic environment. So are journalists allowed freedom of speech denied to citizens. Myra hasn't said anything not in the press.