Maya chat on radio 4 now

[NewNameGuy]

BBC going for it

"It's like a Christian saying that gays are an abomination "

The judge has "potentially gone beyond the remit of the belief" according to the barrister who is explaining the situation to the BBC. He believes that this will definitely be going through the higher courts.

"remit of this hearing" - apologies.

So the case was lost not on the basis that the belief itself should not be protected, but that the “manifestation” of that belief could lead to distress and lack of respect for dignity and rights of a trans person. That is I think what the lawyer said.
But Maya DID not address any trans person directly with those beliefs. She didn’t say to a trans woman “you are a man”. The lawyer said that this does not prevent debate re changes to GRA. But that is exactly what it does. (Though not a binding judgement). If you cannot say “but that trans woman is a biological man so should not be able to access woman’s spaces”, you CANNOT debate the changes. Any employer can sack you if you express these beliefs/biological facts ANYWHERE.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, freedom to manifest one’s belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society

That is from the ruling. Who decides which thoughts are incompatible with a ‘democratic society?’ If belief in the immutability of biological sex is not compatible, that suggests freedom of thought has been seriously restricted. I hope this goes to a higher court. Particularly in light of another poster’s comment that the judge nominated himself to hear this case and he is committed to ‘diversity.’ That’s a political belief. Did it influence his judgment?

We are now in a position where expressing gender critical views can lose you your job.
This is rubbish.
If in a workplace, a person constantly told a trans woman that they were male, ignoring the upset this caused, then obviously they should be able to be disciplined/sacked on basis of harassment/lack of respect. In same way, if someone repeatedly went on about any employee in a hostile manner, they can be disciplined. So, if I, an atheist repeatedly told a Christian/Muslim/Hindu person that they were deluded and their god non existent, an employer shoukd be able to tell me off, sack me if I persisted. BUT, I shoukd be able to express my atheist views as much as I want on social media, or anywhere as long as Im not harassing someone with them.

The judge here made a non rational leap from stating the right to express beliefs in a democratic society to “but this belief has no place in a democratic society” (paraphrased). This non rational leap reveals the bias of the judge. He makes blurred woffly statements about science now moving from the binary without ANY evidence for such a bizarre statement . Again HIS biased views.
Seems clear that this case will go further. It must be reversed or the implications are huge.
WE CANNOT DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES to GRA without RISKING OUR JOBS.

The interview was good.

Some parts could have done with being drawn out more.

There was talk of the judgement being not that the belief is wrong (biological sex is immutable) but that having such beliefs might lead to Maya saying in in her workplace and upsetting a transperson there.

It needed drawing out that Maya did not ever harrass anyone in any way in the work place. She has made it clear that she wouldn't misgender for the sake of being a dickhead to people.

Furthermore, it was mentioned almost in passing that Maya put her view that biological sex is immutable on her personal social media, she didn't do anything at work.

This imbecile judge also completely misrepresented the law, with regards to the GRA and the EA2010.
(I don't know much about the legal limits on expression of belief, but it seems as though he misrepresented that law too, seeing as Maya was not causing upset to anyone directly).

If it goes to higher court hopefully it will be heard by a better judge who isn't a misogynistic twerp...

I liked how Justin pointed out that people believe the earth is flat, evolution is a lie etc and might be upset if they overhear talk in the workplace that makes it clear others do not share their beliefs but that in this case it seems to be that a transperson hearing their beliefs disbelieved would cause them way way more upset than someone with those other beliefs. I can't remember his exact wording but I liked it.

The lawyer was not helping make it clear. He seemed rather dazed like he'd just rolled out of bed and someone said you are on the radio in 2 mins mate.

I consider that the Claimant’s view in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others

There it is, crystal clear. An unwavering belief in biological sex is an affront to human dignity and human rights. Which other unwavering beliefs are similarly problematic if this ruling stands? How is this ruling compatible with the judge’s assertion that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and speech?

It seems really problematic not to be able to express this belief at all in work even if it's NOT for the purposes of debate.
If you work in a girls' school
Or a women's refuge
If you are teaching sex education
If you are a doctor or a nurse
If you are a biology researcher
Etc. etc. etc.

The belief that males should be treated in all ways as females if they say so is also incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others. Compelling active participation in a belief you do not hold is incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others.

Enforcing that people's objective reality, science and established fact should be subservient to a niche political view that the judge himself admits goes against British law - is plain ridiculous.

What was that hearing recently when the judge ruled that a person does not have the right to "not be upset"?

The judgement in Maya's case was unintelligible bullshit.

Compelling active participation in a belief you do not hold is incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others

Well said

I consider that the Claimant’s view in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of other

That judgment would apply to many scenarios. The claim that a man is now a woman, and also entitled to access female intimate spaces is incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others, being one.

The judge has not thought clearly about the evidence. The judgment is deeply biased and a mockery. It is assuming certain rights are sacrosanct, whilst implying that others are not. that one set of rights, supersedes another set. That is a value judgment

Who was the judge?

I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that sex is biological and immutable. Even though she has come to this belief recently, she’s fixed in it and appears to be becoming more so

That is from ruling. What does the judge mean by come to this belief recently? Part of the ruling seems to refer to Maya’s steadfastness in her belief in biological sex. This is presented as inherently problematic. I am interested to see what implications this has for other beliefs whose adherents as resolute?

The Claimant largely ignores intersex conditions and the fact that biological opinion is increasingly moving away from a (sic) absolutist approach

I posted this on the other thread, but thought it was relevant here. I note that the rare anomaly of ‘intersex’ is being used to justify a denial that humans are dimorphic. I am not a scientist but I would like to know what scientific basis is there for the judge’s assertion about ‘biological opinion moving?’

What was that hearing recently when the judge ruled that a person does not have the right to "not be upset"?

It wasn’t a ruling, it was a comment made by the judge in the Fair Cop judicial review hearing.

Who was the barrister on Radio 4? I missed it.

Everyone has right to freedom of expression. The exercise of these freedoms may be subject to such formalities as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime

How is a belief in biological sex inimical to national security? How does it threaten disorder or crime? Who defines what restrictions on freedom of expression are necessary for a ‘democratic society’

Seems clear that this case will go further. It must be reversed or the implications are huge.
WE CANNOT DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES to GRA without RISKING OUR JOBS.

The consultation on the proposed changes in Scotland is now underway.

*Sicario

What was that hearing recently when the judge ruled that a person does not have the right to "not be upset"?

This is from Harry Miller's judicial review. Judgment is expected soon, or maybe in the new year.

I am not a scientist but I would like to know what scientific basis is there for the judge’s assertion about ‘biological opinion moving?’

@BovaryX It hasn't been, unless you count the oddness of Prof Alice Roberts. There would be dozens of archaeological researchers willing to refute her nonsense in a higher court.