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

Bloody hell, James Tayler's judgment is mangled - it's one of the worst-written judgments I've ever read and full of typos, bless him.

If you can pick a coherent thread out of it, do try - what there is of his argument is frail at best.

Maybe the judgement's deliberately weak to allow an appeal.

I was shocked to read this. It seems bonkers. I have no legal knowledge so any insights are very much appreciated.

Surely Maya has made clear that, while her views are absolute, she is willing to compromise for courtesy - ie to avoid causing an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment?

And if a woman identifies a physically male person as a man, is it not intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive to her to force her to deny the evidence of her perceptions? Is that an approach worthy of respect in a democratic society?

The judge says that we mustn't ever make an environment "degrading, humiliating or offensive" for a transwoman, but it's OK to make an environment degrading, humiliating or offensive for a woman.

The judge says that he believes transwomen are women (who are not worthy of respect), but he treats them as though they were men (who are).

- isn't 'woman' defined in EA2010 as 'a female of any age'? So according to this judge, the Equality Act isn't worthy of respect in a democratic society?

This is an example of a legal fiction. For the purposes of law (in this case the EA2010), a girl will be treated as a woman even though as a matter of fact they are not.

And Maya, this is a terrible judgement and will support if you go to appeal.

On a most serious note, remember these Judges are self selecting.

So let's look at Judge James Tayler. He's listed as a "Diversity and Community Relations" Judge. So, he's already self-selected and put himself forward for an area which is focused on diversity and community relations. His brief, I would think, is to promote diversity and encourage community relations in his judgments.

To accept that biological sex and men and women exist, in 2019, would not fit the diversity or community agenda of his employers.

The agenda is wrong from the outset.

Did Maya say that? That she had only recently discovered that people can't change sex?

No. In her witness statement she said:

"I have understood and believed that there are two sexes, and that women and girls do not have penises for as long as I can remember. This was something I noticed as a child, it was explained to me by my parents and featured in books I read from an early age [...] My belief that these facts are important (“sex matters”) has become more systematic and clearly expressed in recent years, in response to realising that they have become contested (I had previously thought that the existence and importance of the sexes was a belief that was obvious and universally held, and it would not have occurred to me that this belief could be presented as somehow in conflict with protecting the human rights of transvestites and transsexuals)"

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

Actually that is a bad example!

Thank you Maya. We are right behind you.

memento thank you for outlining the criteria for a philosophical belief to be...taken seriously, I guess.

Do you, or does anyone else know, if Maya had been rooting her beliefs in religion, would that be likely to alter the judgement?

If I am understanding this correctly, it's a disaster.

The headline really is that somehow swathes of society have been hoodwinked into thinking that the knowledge that humans are vastly likely to be either male or female from birth to death because that is how humans continue to exist, is a belief so extreme and offensive that the very holding of it is offensive and must not be uttered.

I have no words for how unutterably silly and yet dangerous such thinking is.

@JellySlice presumably the only people who would be turned away from the shelters would be someone who rocks up and says "I'm a man but I want to come in". You wouldn't be able to challenge someone who just outwardly presents as a man because that would be humiliating for them (we must always be nice) and we have no idea what their genes might be up to because the judge asserted TWAW so they would have every right to be there.

Did Maya say that? That she had only recently discovered that people can't change sex?

No. She explicitly said in court in front of the judge that it was a long held belief as far back as she could remember (just like the rest of us sane people on planet earth).

He very much misrepresented her here as he has in other places. We all grow up understanding what male and female is.

Maya

Oh shit.

Maya I'm so sorry and we'll done for your your courage and tenacity.

Between us we can and will fund the appeal to this. Truth is truth.

Maya I’m sorry about this shitty, anti-science, disgrace of a judgement. You deserved better. I hope you can find it in you to appeal

I can't see how calling someone 'unreasonably absolutist' for pointing out genetic material is different in men and women makes sense.

The world's a funny place at the moment - we've got presidents telling us lies are the facts, and judges telling us the facts are lies.

Well done James - not the judiciary's finest hour. Your colleagues must be cringeing.

Do you, or does anyone else know, if Maya had been rooting her beliefs in religion, would that be likely to alter the judgement?

No I don't think so (although I am not a lawyer)

Because of what the judge says in para 90.
This would apply whether or not the belief was rooted in religion.

"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"

Wow, I didn't see this coming. I simply couldn't believe that a judge could sit through all the evidence yet get it so wrong - I was absolutely convinced Maya would win.

Maya, like everyone else here I'm behind you and will help in any way I can. Thanks again for doing this for us.

memento ah, yes, I see, thank you.

I was expecting a vague sort of "sorry, technicality" loss.

I really was not prepared for this utterly scathing, legally inaccurate, virtually illiterate judgement against Maya.

This....
Gutted and absolutely shocked.... But still digging

Chilling is the only word for this... HOW is this not the front page of every newspaper?

Once Maya states her plans wrt appealing I will get out the biggest spade I can find.

The 'human dignity' test confuses me. Surely some religions believe that homosexuality is wrong? Is that not in conflict with homosexuals' dignity?

So why is this on 'Trending'?

I thought threads from FWR didn't appear on 'Trending'