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

Why is the judge blathering on about 'democracy' when no laws on self id have even got past the consultation stage in the uk? The GRA as it stands clearly provides for sex based exemptions regardless of GRC.

Are we sure he isn't a TRA and the real judge isn't tied up in a basement being lectured by LilyMadigan or someone? Saying that someone's deeply held philosophical beliefs are 'not worthy of respect' is a violation of several layers of human rights legislation.

Or is he a GC Agent Provocateur trying to enrage people enough to end this stupid cult once and for all?!

Rufflecrow

I was pretty devastated at this ruling last night, but all the publicity it's generated! It may just work in our favour.

This needs to be looked at by a more senior judge - not a woke "diversity" RT judge. It needs to go to the top - because whichever way I think about it, it is not compatible with the Equality Act.

Biological sex is protected - how can we be sacked for believing in it, and expressing that belief?

I suppose this is why TRAs are so desperate to have sex replaced by gender identity in the Equality Act.....

Oblomov, the equality act is not the only relevant piece of legislaton here. Freedom of conscience is protected by several international treaties the UK has ratified. The judge can't simply ignore these without expecting repercussions. Bring on the appeal.

Has little OJ deigned to offer his opinion yet?

I think even OJ has the basic sense to understand that supporting the rights of employers to sack staff for wrongthink is a bad look for a socialist. But perhaps I give him too much credit.

I'm confused by a few things in the judgement and wonder if somebody could enlighten me:

1). Have Maya's former employer's confirmed that they sacked her because of her views on this issue? I thought the premise of the case was that it is discriminatory to sack somebody because of a belief, but the judge seems to be arguing that it was legal for them to sack her because she was offensive. However I thought the employer's argument was just that it was a temporary contract that came to an end?

2). What is the relevance of the following comment from the judge? It seems completely irrelevant as

1. Maya has not commented on intersex conditions
2. Trans people do not have to undergo some kind of genetic test to prove that they are trans.
3. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with male and female roles in sexual reproduction, which is what Maya is talking about when she talks about sex.

"The Claimant largely ignores intersex conditions and the fact that biological opinion is increasingly moving away from a absolutist approach to there being genes the presence or absence of which determine specific attributes, to understanding that it is necessary to analyse which genes are present, which are switched on, the
extent to which they are switched on and the way in which they interact with other genes."

Where does this leave the female gynaecologist who refuses to do a smear for someone with testicles but holds a GRC?

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

As far as I understand it, Maya's argument did pass four of the five tests, it just failed on the one about it being in conflict with other people's rights.

My DC has just peak transed.

"Sir, I identify your baby as a helicopter"
"I identify this baby as a magpie"
"Nobody gives a fuck that there are 64 genders"

Yep, they've read what JK Rowling said on Twitter. I don't think they'll be the only one. They're supportive of people who are transgender (not aggressive TRAs) but now thinks it has gone too far.

Also from the judgement:

"When in an, admittedly very bitter, dispute with Gregor Murray, who alleged that they had been misgendered by the Claimant, rather than seeking to accommodate Gregor Murrays legitimate wishes she stated: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns “they” and “them”, “Murray also calls it “transphobic” that I recognise a man when I see one. I disagree”, “In reality Murray is a man. It is Murray’s right to believe that Murray is not a man, but Murray cannot compel others to believe this.” and that “I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”

90. 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."

Again, I find this really confusing from a legal point of view. As far as I can see Gregor Murray does not present as somebody who is not male, does not appear to be undergoing gender reassignment, and given that there is no legal recognition of non-binary gender does not have a GRC.

Where does this leave the female gynaecologist who refuses to do a smear for someone with testicles but holds a GRC?

Quite! Yaniv is currently going after gynaecologists in Canada.

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

I can understand why that might be part of the judgement - what I don't understand is why the judge included all the stuff about genetics and Gregor Murray's rights as a non-binary person (non undergoing gender reassignment) in the judgement.

There is something barking mad about someone who thinks a woman losing her job is a price worth paying in order to defend an utterly toxic person like Gregor Murray's "right" to demand others call beardy Murrayself "them."

There is something barking mad about someone who thinks a woman losing her job is a price worth paying in order to defend an utterly toxic person like Gregor Murray's "right" to demand others call beardy Murrayself "them."

"Gregor Murray" are two words that pretty much sum up my concerns about self ID.

Just put this on the JK Rowling thread too - but Edward Lord doesn't want this talked about.

Shame Justin Webb was.... doing his job reporting the news on R4 Today isn't it?

Shame JK Rowling and many others are coming out to support Maya...

Would that be Justin Lord the friend of the former paedophile information exchange?

Edward Lord😊

Swoons for Justin Webb...!

Yaniv's gynae has refused to treat yaniv.

It would indeed be that Edward Lord, CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost

Hateful language like biological truth ?

My, Mr Lord is doing a wonderful job of informing the great British public.

But perhaps I give him too much credit.

I can't imagine he'll let this go before having his say as no 1 Trans Ally.

Hateful language like biological truth ?

My, Mr Lord is doing a wonderful job of informing the great British public.

Indeed. And they just need to know how someone this daft can change laws...

If a person believes reality is hateful then are they mentally unsound?

Next year is the US election.

During the summer when campaigning will be in full swing, are the Olympics.

Can anyone tell me what they think is going to happen and whether they think the Democrats will have learned anything from Jo and Jeremy over the last month?

What is the Democrat candidate going to say if asked what a woman is?

Cos next summer this is going to get tested very hard.

Regardless of all the other crap that Trump has done, this adherence to wokism will be a barrier in blue collar states. Just like in the UK.

Twitter is going to have a meltdown.

How many people are going to say things that potentially will put their jobs at risk?

How long does anyone honestly think this bollocks is going to last?

Maya might have lost this round but she will either win on appeal or wheels will be set in motion to unravel the whole damn thing. And possibly will go further than that in unravelling a whole bunch of other rights issues and the genuine public support for them.

The utter blindness and lack of foresight by the woke left and liberals is staggering in its arrogance.

JK is a proper liberal who understands the perils of loss of freedom of speech and the abusive use of censorship. It's woven in her books for anyone paying attention and a knowledge of history.

I think this judgement definitely needs to be looked on with a short term and long term view.

It won't stand and anyone with a real understanding of the world and politics and public opinion should be aware of it.

Those that don't are going to find out one way or another.

Personally I wish they'd wake up before the fall out gets even bigger.

What is the Democrat candidate going to say if asked what a woman is?

I saw the other day that Elizabeth Warren has her pronouns in her Twitter bio. I knew immediately that Trump was going to win again.