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.

One day, you'll wish you had listened to feminists.

I have listened a lot and agree there are concerns about self ID. I’m trying to talk about things respectfully.

The central idea is that being a woman, trans or not, isn’t a licence to ride roughshod over the needs of others; that it comes with rights, but not infinite ones.

That cuts both ways, obviously.

This isn't what the judge decided. He reckons he has settled 2 of the 4 points that were brought to this preliminary hearing.

The first was whether Maya's beliefs were protected under the EA - he said no because they failed Grainger 5 - i.e. that they amounted to harassment of those with the PC of gender reassignment (a PC which incidentally does not apply to Gregor Murray, Pips/Philip Bunce or Clair Quentin).

The second was whether genderist ideology was a protected belief under the EA and if so, whether Maya's disbelief was therefore also protected. He totally swerved this one.

Tayler decided it was not necessary to apply the Grainger criteria to genderist ideology because it was obviously correct. The analogy he used was a philosophical belief that murder is wrong, and the corresponding disbelief - 'I don't believe that murder is wrong.' He said there was no need to do the Grainger thing on the belief side and of course the disbelief side fails (paras 58 and 92).

He basically said TWAW just like murder is wrong.

Had he applied Grainger to the genderist ideology he would have had to admit that an absolutist belief that TWAW inevitably leads to harassment of women and girls on the grounds of the protected characteristic of sex.

Harassment in the EA is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates someone's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

This is why we have the single sex exceptions - they are there to prevent harassment.

Preventing harassment is ALWAYS a legitimate aim because harassment is prohibited conduct.
Excluding a tw is ALWAYS proportionate because including only one tw makes it a mixed sex environment for everyone.

I have listened a lot and agree there are concerns about self ID.

But how do you talk about self ID if you can't talk about sex? How do you refer to sex if any discussion can be shut down because apparently man and woman and male and female can now only refer to gender and any discussion of biological sex and its consequences runs the risk of misgendering?

How do you talk about the oppressive concept of gender (standard feminist theory from the time before homosexual and transsexual were 'bad words'), if words like woman and man can now only refer to gender?

If you are teaching a course on linguistics and philosophy, how do you talk about this subject at all?

Fieldofgreycorn If you're serious about wanting to discuss this respectfully, please read Maya's witness statement and discuss what she actually said - not what someone else said she said (even if that someone else is the judge, because as I've already mentioned, he misrepresents a lot of what she said).

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

But what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really.

Just read this article and this line stood out. Yet again women being told which arguments we are allowed to use. Disagree with my arguments but don't tell me what I can say.

People arguing a position they don't actually believe tend not to be very convincing, so what Gaby and others are suggesting is that we lie unconvincingly (and thus end up convincing nobody and not having our concerns heard) rather than just saying what our concerns are and proceeding (far more effectively, because the public will understand what we mean) from there

How would I put it? I'd like to very respectfully share concerns about the future of - a class of people who I can't name, for reasons I'm not supposed to talk about, and most of the words I need to use to do this are not respectful. So.…. I'm kind of fucked really.

No. I'm not a masochist, I'm not enabling my own abuse and that of other females, I will talk about this in plain English and laymans terms, because as Harry Miller's judge said, free speech means the right to say things other people don't want to hear.

Not to mention, this happened to me and I've seen other posters on the same path: I began very sensitively, very carefully to question this - and saw how fast we were shifting to losing women's spaces, the stamping all over women's rights and needs, the absolute hatred and violence expressed towards female people who questioned or pointed out that female people had needs too.

I've got less and less willing to be sensitive, or to be respectful, or to have as my first priority other people's (so I'm told) highly fragile and more important emotions, when absolutely none of this is ever expressed towards females. I've got less and less willing to dance around this and I'm seeing the ever growing importance of putting this bluntly, in plain English. In not bowing to the sacred cows, in not genuflecting at the altars. 'Be respectful' means basically 'you may talk only within the TRA agreed narrative, accepting it and complying with it.

One word for that. No.

merrymouse
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.

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

There's a difference between what the GRA says, and what the Equality Act says. Merrymouse was talking about the GRA, and she is correct.
For example, the GRA states that parents are still 'mother' or 'father' even after they transition. Women cannot transition to inherit under the rules of primogeniture. Men who transition can be excluded from sex affected sports.
When they drafted the legislation, they said it would not be possible to prosecute someone for refusing to recognise someones biological sex.

Gaby appears to be one of those people who think that rape victims and vulnerable women only exist in 'shelters' and prisons, or that they can and should be made to get over their trauma in other women's spaces (or go home) whenever someone decides to prioritise a male person's dysphoria over these women's needs.

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

Real law or Stonelaw, Grey? Where does it say in EA2010 or GRA2004 that we have to "gender" someone according to their preferences, with or without a GRC?

By your rationale, we should fire any Royal Navy member who (correctly) refers to a female junior crewmember as "seaman".

When I first started commenting here there was a person who kept expressing shock and discomfort over how blunt I was being - not in the silencing way our ploppers do, more in a "this distresses me even though you're not wrong" way. She ended up basically saying "I see why you put things the way you do now" months down the line. Clear, direct language is important because it allows us to communicate with others - those attempting to limit our ability to speak clearly are limiting our ability to communicate effectively and thus to create change. Some may not understand the consequences of what they're demanding, others clearly do, but in all cases "no, I'm not going to do that" is a perfectly reasonable response to attempts that we self censor.

The best simple example I can think of is "bottom surgery" versus "castration", and "top surgery" versus "mastectomy". The demands that we use the "softer" versions are also demands that we don't communicate quite so clearly, because having what's happening put clearly into words upsets people. To which I say - good, the fact that this is happening to large numbers of young people should upset people hearing about it, and if we as a society are going to do it then the least we can do is be honest about what we're signing those young people up for.

Clarity is important, and I'd urge everyone to be very wary of people trying to limit your ability to communicate clearly.

The decision goes wrong in a number of respects. The two which caught my eye are:

An assumption that because TWAW as provided by section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 this means that there's no need to balance what Maya might be entitled to believe against what trans people believe. It was all about once Maya says something that might upset the beliefs of trans people then she's straying into harassment.

That section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 means that "the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" and all purposes is an absolute when that's so clearly not correct.

There's a trick in the decision. Although it went against Maya because it was implied that she had harassed Murray and Bunce, in an appeal I would expect there to be a major shift to CGD being entitled to terminate the contract because they had a justifiable concern that there was a risk of harassment against trans people having a GRC since Maya had expressed "hardline" views.

I would urge anyone wanting to comment on this issue to read the decision itself.

"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."

But they can't be the opposite sex from the one they were born as. Biology says "no". The law cannot afford a right that is physically impossible. Otherwise King Canute could have stopped the tide and we could pass laws redefining pi and other universal constants and actually have those constants change.

At best the law can make a legal fiction, like corporate personhood. But McDonald's existing as a corporate person doesn't bar me as a private individual from saying the truth about them, that McDonald's is a company and not actually a natural person, and it doesn't force me to assert that McDonald's is a natural person.

If the GRA2004 compels private individuals, as opposed to those acting in an official capacity, to lie about the material reality of sex (which tbh I'm pretty sure it doesn't) then it absolutely should be repealed because it's forcing speech of private citizens in an otherwise-unprecedented fashion.

The GRA also doesn’t cover non binary, the person that Maya was accused of ‘misgendering’ was non-binary.
How can the GRA law, stupid as it is, be used to ‘protect’ individuals who do not and cannot have a GRC? It’s crazy

I’ve read all of it now having skimmed it before. Most of its arguments can be found on this forum.

It’s a detailed well reasoned statement that essentially 1. Says the GRA violates some people’s beliefs and spaces. 2. Is anti science. 3 is internally logically inconsistent. 4 She should not be compelled to adhere to it because of 1-3.

That’s it isn’t it? I get the irony that women had to break the law to get the right to vote. Don’t know what more to say really but don’t agree the GRA should be repealed, but good luck anyway as I said I have learned a lot here.

She should not be compelled to adhere to it because of 1-3.

Are you saying that there's something in the GRA that we should all be compelled to 'adhere to'' on a personal level? Isn't it just about documentation for people wanting a change of legally recognised sex? The only issue about adhering to it for others is if you have gained knowledge in a professional capacity about someone having a GRC.

Fieldofgreycorn
Do you believe in there are circumstances in which compelled belief, and compelled speech, should be imposed?

Because that’s what it boils down to.

There’s a difference between prohibited speech and compelled speech.

Eg not being able to discriminate based on religion is not the same as having to state a belief in religion.

something in the GRA that we should all be compelled to 'adhere to''

I meant it’s the GRA in combination with the EqA sorry.

There’s a difference between prohibited speech and compelled speech.

That’s true. It comes down to not being offensive in the workplace though. You can dismiss gender dysphoria as ‘hurty feels’ but people have dismissed depression as ‘just pull your self together’ in the past.

Out of interest, in what ways would you say Maya Forstater had been offensive in the workplace?

It comes down to not being offensive in the workplace though

No, it doesn't. Maya was not "offensive" in the workplace.She spoke on social media about her sociopolitical beliefs. She spoke in generalities, never about individual people - with the exception of Gregor Murray, where it was a genuine mistake.

If you believe sex a) exists and b) matters in public policy, why are trans people not harassing you in your workplace if they have the temerity to lay out their beliefs on social media? It's a zero sum game if you're going to play it that way. And Maya, at no point, was playing it that way.

It comes down to not being offensive in the workplace though. You can dismiss gender dysphoria as ‘hurty feels’ but people have dismissed depression as ‘just pull your self together’ in the past.

So anyone who has a dysphoric colleague must never acknowledge publicly, in or outside the workplace, that sex is real?

It comes down to not being offensive in the workplace though

So you do believe in compelled speech if it prevents offence occurring in the workplace?

(I note that isn’t what happened in Maya’s case, but if we’re talking hypothetically)

Sorry if I’m coming across as obtuse, I’m genuinely trying to understand your P.O.V., which is when, if ever, do you believe compelled speech is acceptable?

I have had a trans coworker sound off about their deeply regressive and misogynistic ideas about womanhood in the workplace before. Was years ago, and even then I found it offensive . Back then rolling your eyes and/or saying "you realize that's sexist as hell, right?" was allowed, though. Nowadays I'd be hauled in front of HR quicker than you can say "oh, look, whoever wrote this list of protected classes somehow forgot to include women".