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.

I wish people would just take a minute to read the actual legislation and think about the consequenses of compelled speech.
Nowhere in either the GRA or the Equality Act does it say you can be forced to lie.

Fortunately this person has just joined Mumsnet, and he's a qualified solicitor and barrister;
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3772219-maya-lost-can-it-be-true?msgid=92563562

''Free speech in context of legitimate public debate trumps rights of others under art.10(2) even if considered insulting to section of population''
twitter.com/jac_aston/status/1209433175837040641?s=21

The question is why the judge in Maya's case decided that he didn't need to follow the law.

They’re all getting ‘ahead of the law’,

And advising everyone else to do the same 🙄

It comes down to not being offensive in the workplace though.

Where is the evidence that she was offensive in the workplace?

More than that she worked for the Centre for Global Development:

One of their focuses is family planning:

"More and more research underlines the large health and economic benefits of investing in family planning for the women users, their families, and the societies in which they live. Yet global efforts to increase access have been impacted by some major policy shifts. CGD looks at how to optimize efforts to reach more women, faster and more effectively, and how to expand contraceptive access and education in a tougher international political climate. We also study the nature of the link between family planning access and female empowerment: Is it correlation or causation?"

How does any of this make sense if the word 'woman' has no objective meaning?

We also study the nature of the link between family planning access and female empowerment: Is it correlation or causation?

According to the judgement, this sentence is either completely meaningless or the assumptions and beliefs behind it (sex exists and the role women play in reproduction affects their ability to participate equally insociety ) are incompatible with human dignity.

in what ways would you say Maya Forstater had been offensive in the workplace?

She wasn’t. But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place. Not just because proportionate means/ legitimate aim, but just because of ‘religion or belief’.

They’re all getting ‘ahead of the law’

No such thing. They are breaking the law and it should be referred to as such.

Oh, Field, you do make me smile.

But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place. Not just because proportionate means/ legitimate aim, but just because of ‘religion or belief’.

Because many women hold a belief in reality and biological sex, and require that belief recognised in order to be able to have access to things like toilets, changing, hcps, hospital wards, not being raped in prison, law etc without a hostile, alarming and humiliating environment.

This may clash with providing the recognition of someone's chosen identity in the way that they wish. But biological sex is a reality. It's tragic that females have been forced into court to try and retain their right to necessary reality to keep equality under the onslaught of those who don't care about the needs of females and instead want their recognition of something that is not compatible with other people's objective reality, at all times, in all places, regardless of the impact on others.

allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place

You mean like not having to eat kosher food in the work place? Not praising Allah in the work place? Not saying Grace before eating in the work place? Not having to cover her head in the work place (apart from with necessary protective clothing? Like mixing in public when on her period? Or not following a host of other faith-based practices?

protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place

Non binary isn’t a protected characteristic.
Sex is though.
Should biological sex be recognised in the workplace in line with the EA?

You can dismiss gender dysphoria as ‘hurty feels’ but people have dismissed depression as ‘just pull your self together’ in the past
Do you honestly think the people and situations that folk like Maya was speaking about were people with gender dysphoria? That's not what trans means anymore (and is probably transphobic to suggest it tbh)

She wasn’t. But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place. Not just because proportionate means/ legitimate aim, but just because of ‘religion or belief

Not really. What she believes and what the policy Is in her workplace are two separate things.

She was arguing she shouldn’t be liable to be subjected to less favourable treatment because of what she believes. Her case was never about forcing her former “employer” to do anything about their policy regarding those with GRC, just preventing them discriminating against her because of what she believes.

Always pretending this is about distress and gender dysphoria, when it's actually about aggressive people of a certain sex.

But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place.

EA 2010 explanatory notes:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/1

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."

But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place. Not just because proportionate means/ legitimate aim, but just because of ‘religion or belief’.

What do you mean, 'on a par with protected characteristics'? What do you mean, 'just because of religion or belief'?

Religion or belief IS a protected characteristic. That's what the case is about - whether Maya has been discriminated against in relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief

Start here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10

But she was trying to get GC beliefs on a par with protected characteristics in a way that would allow denying recognition of someone’s transitioned sex in the work place.

I'm not following your reasoning here. As far as I know the Catholic Church campaigns against abortion, Abortion is legal in the UK, Catholicism is a religion. It does not follow that because it is legal to follow the teachings of the Pope, Catholics spend their time harassing women who have had abortions in the work place.

The idea that you can get sacked for saying Gregor what's it is a bloke is bonkers.

And I assume this post will be deleted.

Presents as a bloke, is a male human. But you're at risk in your job if you say, that's a bloke.

This has gone so far.

99.999% of people in the world say yeah that's a bloke, this statement is verboten in law.

Had enough now.

Dear god, the belief that biological sex exists and can't be changed being on a par with other beliefs? Outrageous! Appalling! What will those nasty women think of next??!

What do you mean, Not just because proportionate means/ legitimate aim?

PM/LA crops up all over the EA. It's a way of assessing whether you can lawfully use one of the EA exceptions to balance the rights of different groups.

PM/LA is never the 'because', it's a way of deciding whether your 'because' is legitimate and if so, whether your methods are fair.

The idea that you can get sacked for saying Gregor what's it is a bloke is bonkers.

And I assume this post will be deleted.

Unless MNHQ are applying Stonelaw, it shouldn't be. Non-binary gender identities have no status in law and are not protected under EA2010. With a masculine name and presentation and being clearly biologically male, we can reasonably assume that Gregor Murray is legally male and should be able to call him a man on that basis.