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

For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
AND
Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others.

We are having gender ideology forced on us, and yet it fails on these two counts.

So scientific fact fails because the judge doesn't understand basic science, and we are left with having to believe in an insane and incoherent ideology which actually is incompatible with human dignity - at least for women. But maybe he thinks women aren't actually human?

I’m not sure it’s possible to rely on male rationality, ie the courts, to help women fight this agenda.

Between their own castrations anxiety making it impossible for them to regard TW as male (and often causing the, to regard TW as people of the greatest pathos) and their dislike of the bad-mummy disobedient female, a lot of male psychic irrationality is invested in the submission of women to TWAW.

Half the problem we are fighting is, ironically, the very deep phobia in men who insist TW absolutely cannot be male. And the binary thinking that follows: if TW cannot be male, they must therefore be female.

I continue to think it’s going to come down to girls and women engaging in mass civil disobedience.

Power concedes nothing without demand.

Surely some religions believe that homosexuality is wrong? Is that not in conflict with homosexuals' dignity?

Homosexuals don't count. Just like women.

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

My only encounter with the courts, a dispute in the County Court, was so impeccably written that every i was dotted, and every t crossed and there was not an inch to give to allow for any appeal.

And it was written the same day.

Bicker "Half the problem we are fighting is, ironically, the very deep phobia in men who insist TW absolutely cannot be male."

I've had a male acquaintance try to tell me that the reason I don't have to worry about places like hospital wards or public toilets is that "the type of man who wants to be trans is not a threat to women".

So shocked by this. OH agrees it is a bad judgement and he is no feminist.

"the type of man who wants to be trans is not a threat to women".

Like Karen White?

Fuck.

Horrified by this .

This is depressing and frustrating.
It does feel like women are not allowed to speak their truth and science is irrelevant.
Well done for fighting Maya.

Worth reading the judgement - so badly written it's jaw-dropping and talking such garbage one could scream. BUT according to legal minds, it's mangled the law and an appeal is likely to succeed - apparently many such preliminary assessments are overturn on appeal. Here's hoping.

Surely some religions believe that homosexuality is wrong?

I think the Equality Act protects you because you are a member of a certain religion. I don't think it necessarily protects all the beliefs of that religion. So for instance you can't be sacked because you are a Christian but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you like, cite the bible and say it is your religion. So if the belief is not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" you will not be protected.

OldCrone yes, that was the first example I mentioned and he was very thoughtful.

tbh we haven't spoken much recently because politics, but I think he will have done some research and hopefully seen more of what's happening.

Most ET judges are really good and know their stuff. The judgement is written by someone who does not understand the equality act. I think this will be straightforward on appeal as it is so stupid and so far out there as to make a mockery of reality and the law. I think the judge was an idiot or was not brave enough to give a proper ruling or was pressured by lobby groups.

Half the problem we are fighting is, ironically, the very deep phobia in men who insist TW absolutely cannot be male. And the binary thinking that follows: if TW cannot be male, they must therefore be female.

I think you're right that the support that many men show for TW is due to transphobia and castration anxiety. TW somehow threaten their own masculinity, so it helps them to deny that such people are men. And if they're not men, they must be women.

But what does this mean? That she has been fired from her job and remains so?

And because she tweeted that men can't change sex? Is that literally it?

Just popping in again for anyone new to this. No legalese in this post.

This is where we've got to. For those who are: 'Oh, it's a niche area' 'Oh, be nice' 'Oh, stop focusing on genitals'

Males.

You know, those born with penises.

Particularly those males who say they are women. Or say they are non-binary - neither women nor men. But would like to access women-only spaces. (Why? Blokes with penises? Why are these spaces so important for you?)

These are some of the people who are celebrating the fact that a woman has been judged against, that her belief that you cannot change sex, and that women and children are at risk otherwise, is somehow wrong.

Think that through.

(Cue people saying FWR is genitally-obsessed and goes on about penises too much)

so, if I was in a pub quiz and one of the questions was 'how many sexes are there?'

does this now mean that if I answer 'two' then I'd be wrong???

memento thanks, that makes sense. I guess.

AutumnRose

Yes, I’ve heard the same. I’ve even heard woke blokes agreeing that heterosexual AGPs shouldn’t count as TW but then in the next breath argue that if any male claims womanhood, they must be a woman.

It’s so clear that they think that because to claim womanhood is, to them, so abhorrent, no male would do so unless it was somehow desperately true.

And the corollary to that is that, in their eyes, we as women aren’t real, with our own constitutive integrity, in the same way they, as men, are. They do not at all believe that TMAM.

I think this will be straightforward on appeal as it is so stupid and so far out there as to make a mockery of reality and the law.

That's what we all thought in the first place, that GC is straightforward and trans ideology is so stupid and so far out there as to make a mockery of reality.

Maybe that’s the way to go? Focus on whether TMAM, and maybe then the penny will drop for these men...

I've thought this a couple of times, but each time it hits me a little harder:

We're no longer playing a game of "how many fingers, Winston?"; this is about divide and conquer, using fear as the primary weapon, with the desired result that we all consider naming "Julia" to protect ourselves (and our families) as individuals.

Disclaimer - aiming for a parallel with 1982, not a direct comment on desired names or pronouns (not that that helped Maya in court)!

"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"

This doesn't even take into account what Maya actually said which was that she would use preferred pronouns etc... as a polite social convention when dealing directly with someone.

This is the bit I couldn't parse (final sentence of para 78):

The Claimant contends that the belief is “important” because it is necessary to support her sense of self, her feminism and political activism, belief in the importance of single sex services, support for single sex education, use of women only changing rooms and showers, old-age care, family planning and maternity services, upbringing of children, women only services for the vulnerable and her political online activism.

In her evidence, she focused particularly her contention that it is important that there can be some spaces where particularly vulnerable women and girls, who have been subject to
sexual assault by men, are only open to women assigned female at birth. I consider that on a proper analysis these are reasons why she considers that her belief in the immutability of sex is important, rather than the belief itself.