Gaby Hinsliff article in Guardian on Maya Forstater case

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/22/maya-forstater-case-about-protected-beliefs-not-trans-rights

Gaby Hinsliff writes:

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

How would one do that if one can't talk about sex? What language would one use?

How do you talk about the need for sex segregated sports if you can't talk about the sex?

The law currently gives specific examples of situations where it would be legal to exclude all trans women (e.g. from a counselling service for women who have been raped ), and the reason is their biological sex.

I can only conclude that nether Gaby Hinsliff nor the judge are familiar with UK legislation and that both are reading 'Stonelaw' - specifically the bit that pretends that sex based exemptions don't exist.

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case.

But that very much isn't the law. The GRA lists situations where ALL trans women or men can or should be excluded, even with a GRC, and the reason is their biological sex.

It's not what the law says. There are many things wrong with that law but it was at least not written so stupidly as to mean "you can exclude the nasty ones", as that would be a nightmare to try to enforce. Which leads me to wonder if this judge is a bit thick or if he's just hoping the public is.

No it doesn’t say that. It says for all purposes. With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

The judgement made it clear that its fine to discuss the GRA self ID consultation but we can do so respectfully.

It seems relevant that MF is accused of misgendering individuals who would would not currently be eligible for a GRC per the GRA 2004.

I'd really like to understand what the word 'woman' is supposed to mean if I am required to accept that somebody who identifies as a woman on a part-time basis is a woman.

It says for all purposes. With some exceptions.

Do you really think that makes sense?

MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law

No, she didn't.

Tomorrow I am going to become a vegan for all purposes.

Except for bacon sandwiches.

Then you’re not a vegan.

It’s going to get silly.

With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

Where the entire class of transwomen would be excluded. Not, as the judge said, 'certain trans women'. The exemptions allow for treating transwomen as a class differently from women as a class.

And there is no definition of what is proportionate and legitimate, leaving it to each service provider to make their own decision about what is least likely to leave them open to legal action.

I think the judge’s point would be that being a vegan is an absolutist position. Whereas sex/ gender isn’t such a simple black and white issue.

MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law - like we all have to.

Where did she say that? If you're going to chuck accusations about like that, you need to be able to back them up with more evidence than 'someone on twitter said it, so it must be true'.

It's not even as though all the instances in the act where biological sex overrides legal sex are particularly proportionate or legitimate.

A trans man cannot inherit a peerage that passes down the male line, so in most instances would be excluded from being one of the 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, just like anybody else whose biological sex is female.

There are no provisions to check whether the trans man would have the necessary 'masculine' qualities to join the House of Lords on a 'case by case' basis.

I think the judge’s point would be that being a vegan is an absolutist position. Whereas sex/ gender isn’t such a simple black and white issue.

Being a vegan is famously not a black and white issue because it's often difficult to define exactly what an animal product is.

However, sex is black and white apart from the tiny number of people who have a disorder of sexual development that makes their sex genuinely unclear. However, the term 'trans' does not in any way imply that an individual has a DSD.

I don't know why it is ever necessary to categorise anyone by gender. Perhaps you could explain.

No it doesn’t say that. It says for all purposes. With some exceptions that are proportionate and legitimate.

And those exceptions that are "proportionate and legitimate" rest on... what? Could it be.... sex?

The judge misrepresented the law and Maya's argument.

I'm getting fed up with this continual repetition of an outright lie.

MF explicitly said she would do her best to use chosen pronouns for individual people out of courtesy.

She reserved the right to talk about actual biological sex in general terms in the context of political discussions.

Which is absolutely vital if we are to be able to discuss questions like housing male bodied sex offenders in the female estate, whether women can request female HCPs for intimate examinations (the elective sort, scheduled well in advance, when generally the majority of practitioners in these areas are female, so it shouldn't cause a resourcing problem), women's sport.

I am assuming no-one on this thread, whichever side of the debate they are on, would wish to impose legal restrictions on language use so draconian that it would make having such discussions impossible. (Or indeed believes that there are already legal restrictions which mean having such discussions is already illegal - I'm assumin PC Gul is not a MN-er).

From the other thread:
“However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is
incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.”

To deny someone a legal right would not be following the law.

Anyone supporting judicial activism replacing democracy is, well, an anti-democrat. Jus' sayin'.

Once this seeps into public understanding, there is no power on earth - even Owen Idiot Jones - that will get Britons to vote it into power.

Those who've consistently lied will be given even more side eye than we've already been giving them here too.

I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that sex is biological and immutable. For her it is more that an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. Even though she has come to this belief recently she is fixed in it, and appears to be becoming more so. She is not prepared to
consider the possibility that her belief may not be correct

Jesus wept. It is what everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD believes. When that happens - it is known as a FACT.

It’s going to get silly.

Because 'X always means Y without exception except for Z' is a silly proposition.

She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.

The law doesn't give them that right.

It's a badly drafted law that doesn't make much sense, but Maya Forstater didn't draft the law.

"She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned.”

That is indeed what the judge said. Which is why the judge would do well to reflect on King Canute - whose point was to demonstrate to his courtiers that the king telling the tide not to come in wasn't going to stop it doing so.

Or perhaps reflect on the idiocy of the Indiana pi bill.

Just because the law establishes the legal fiction that someone is to be treated as if they have changed sex doesn't mean that it is physically possible for that person to have changed sex.

MF explicitly said she would do her best to use chosen pronouns for individual people out of courtesy.

She did. But she also wants to be able to call a TW a M if she wants to, and have that protected as a philosophical belief in terms of the EqA.

I am assuming no-one on this thread, whichever side of the debate they are on, would wish to impose legal restrictions on language use so draconian that it would make having such discussions impossible.

Quite. But the judge said we can still have those discussions where necessary in a way that doesn’t mean calling every TW a M. You’re trying to do the same sleight of hand trick the judge spotted!

Fieldofgreycorn
The judge made a lot of assertions about Maya in that judgement which were not true. Amongst other things he said that she had only recently discovered that people couldn't change sex.

doesn't mean that it is physically possible for that person to have changed sex.

And you’re perfectly entitled to that belief. As judge said. That doesn’t mean you’re then entitled to act in a way that is “causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men”. “The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

We can still say that a sex offender with a penis shouldn’t be housed with vulnerable female prisoners no matter how that person identifies.