Maya chat on radio 4 now

[NewNameGuy]

BBC going for it

Why is the existence of biological sex being debated as a 'belief' and not being defended as scientific fact?

What am I missing here?

Maya has said she'd use preferred pronouns.
Fine for her.
It shouldn't become enshrined in law that using preferred pronouns is the correct thing for us all to do.

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

No it isn’t. It’s like a non-Christian saying they don’t believe in God.

There would be dozens of archaeological researchers willing to refute her nonsense in a higher court

WeGo
I hope that happens. Because if this is unchallenged, the grievous assault on freedom of speech will continue

Why is the existence of biological sex being debated as a 'belief' and not being defended as scientific fact?

It's to do with the legal framework within which the arguments were made. Effectively Maya Forstater was arguing under the part of the law saying she cannot be discriminated against because of her beliefs.

nothing more ' absolutist ' than TWAW !!

Judge James Tayler.

Not my sweet baby, though.

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

Adam Wagner.

I wish R4 had interviewed Rosa Freedman rather than Adam Wagner:

Para 84 deeply problematic -- GRC creates legal fiction not a right (the legal fiction enables people to access their existing rights). Also judge doesnt seem to understand concept of dignity in law (as opposed to dignity in ordinary / colloquial language).

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1207570401930428416

Effectively Maya Forstater was arguing under the part of the law saying she cannot be discriminated against because of her beliefs.
Why?
Because it's too difficult to prove that a man is a man?

Justin getting angry criticism from that bloke who ruined the Hampstead women's pond. Because "Biological truth" is apparently hate speech.

Why?
Because it's too difficult to prove that a man is a man?

Because if you want to win you've got to play according to the rules of the game, ie according to the legal framework. Court cases aren't won by telling the court off for not seeing things your way. They're won by showing how, according to the law, your arguments are correct and the other side's aren't.

To quote a well-known ECHR judgment: "Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population"

I'm an absolutist. And getting more absolutist by the day.

Yes, I think it will be very interesting to see how the judgment in Harry's judicial review will sit alongside this finding.

Don't panic. This is the shallow end of the legal swimming pool. Every barrister worth their salt will warn you that even if you have a blindingly good open-and-shut case, the wrong judge or a judge having a bad day or a judge who just doesn't like your face can find ways of finding against you. That's why there's a long-established appeals process.

Look how much outraged attention this has already received. Justin Webb on Radio 4. It's all good.

Justin getting angry criticism from that bloke who ruined the Hampstead women's pond. Because "Biological truth" is apparently hate speech.

Edward Lord, who ran a consultation on mixed-sex services and discounted all responses from people who didn't declare a 'gender identity' or possibly didn't even know what it means?
He can GTF. (I know he was 'they' for a while but I really can't be arsed to check his current pronouns, sorry)