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

Holy fuck

Missa Sancti if you don't mind, young muggle.

Could we start campaigning to repeal the GRA? By pointing to the stupidities like Maya’s case that result from it?

I think the priority should be to get as much publicity as possible so that people know what an existential threat to freedom of speech this poses. Compelled speech is here. The ideology is being promoted in schools. The more people see this agenda, the more resistance. I think the GRA is an atrocious piece of legislation. It should never have been passed. But I think the best way to garner support is the freedom of speech issue. And this ruling makes that explicit

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!

Yes, now its clear it does need to be

Sex discrimination is based on sex.

Never been happier to be called a muggle.

Not really. His judgments sets precedent, his rulings make law. He works within the law and every case makes it, it is not static.

But he has to work with what already exists, in this case the GRA. There is no law about how to become recognised as a penguin, so from the POV of a legal judgement it's not at all comparable. There is a law that says you can change your legal gender, and that's not down to the judge.

Goosefoot but attacking one person doesn’t help. He’s following law that was passed by Parliament. As I said before, Maya’s lawyer has told people to stop attacking the judge and stop sending FOI requests or writing to the MoJ. It doesn’t help Maya’s case in the slightest.

Could we start campaigning to repeal the GRA?
By pointing to the stupidities like Maya’s case that result from it?

There were people trying to prevent the GRA 2004 from being passed at the time because they correctly predicted the absurdities that would eventually flow from it.

It's miserable that everything they anticipated has mostly come to pass (with the exception of some knowingly-absurd posturing from Norman Tebbit).

My friend who is a lawyer says this is the right result.

She too agrees with a lot of what maya says.

But from the law side you can't quote the equality act etc and claim it's almost the same as a religious belief, because it clearly isn't.

oblomov How do you define religious belief, then?

Pope I phrased that badly but what I meant was:

In the law :
it’s a stretch to say that mayas views on this point are the same as a religious belief, giving her protection from discrimination.

It's miserable that everything they anticipated has mostly come to pass (with the exception of some knowingly-absurd posturing from Norman Tebbit)

I quoted Lord Tebbit earlier in this thread. He and Baroness O’Caithness were two of the most fluent opponents to the Bill. Unfortunately it was passed and here we are 15 years later living with the consequences. His words from 2004 resonate today.

Just checked the J.K twitter. I really hate that they took the phrase originally used by Hilary Clinton "women's rights are human rights".

Here's an interesting alternative view. I like this argument!

It's now being covered by the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919

If you have gained a GRC - certificate, then the 2004 law states that you have the right to be classed as that gender?

The odd thing about 'hurtful misgendering' is that people only seem to get worked up about it when it refers to their actual sex.

I get 'misgendered' regularly by email correspondents as I have that sort of a name, DD gets misgendered because she's tall with short hair, DS because he's slight with long hair and that sort of a name.

Nobody dies. Nobody gives a stuff, in fact. Should we all be terribly injured by it and bring lawsuits?

If it's all about '... violating dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating etc ... environment', then there is a clash of rights, isn't there?

There must be.

If a woman has to refer to her rapist is she, how bloody intimidating is that?

If a man with a fetish that relies on humiliating women can make women call him she to get aroused, it's bloody hostile.

The conflict, the clash, that's the thing.

The judgement said:

"I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] 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"

But I read Maya's statement and that doesn't seem to be an accurate summary of her argument.

She didn't say she that she or anyone else should go around deliberately offending trans people people by not using their preferred pronouns.

Her argument was about compelled speech and the ability to communicate facts.

How do you explain why somebody like Edward Lord has privilege if you can't talk about Edward Lord's sex?

How do you explain why women shouldn't have to wax Jessica Yaniv's genitals if you can't talk about Yaniv's sex?

How do any of the exemptions in the equalities act work if you can't mention sex?

Reasonable balance from the BBC. I note the piece does not have a byline from a junior reporter such as Ben Hunte who has been pulled up for biased reporting on a number of occasions

Can someone link to the Maya's submission to the tribunal - I think she made it public, I feel some Christmas reading coming on (that and the judgement).

But from the law side you can't quote the equality act etc and claim it's almost the same as a religious belief, because it clearly isn't.

That might be right, but then is it legal to sack somebody for stating a fact?

But I read Maya's statement and that doesn't seem to be an accurate summary of her argument.

Agree it's been twisted out of recognition. She actually said she would use preferred pronouns out of courtesy.

But if you can't, even theoretically, distinguish between the sexes? Doctors, nurses, biology teachers??

And if you can't talk about how women are oppressed on the basis of the difference in the sexes?

The whole thing is a nonsense. His interpretation of the equality law is batty.

He thinks the GRA creates a ‘legal fact’.

Except it doesn't, because of the exceptions to the rule that somebody must be treated as their acquired sex. (e.g. the notable exception that a transman cannot inherit a title or property that can only pass down the male line).

I don't understand how this judgement sits with the fact that biological sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

How can it be a sackable offence for Maya to talk about her belief in biological sex, when biological sex is one of the 9 named characteristics written into legislation?

I don't see how this judgment can stand - it's utterly illogical.

Maya's witness statement here, MrsFogi -

https://medium.com/@MForstater/claimants-witness-statement-abe3e8073b41