What Maya actually tweeted

[WomanBornNotWorn]

Factual, reasoned, polite statements of fact

This is polite.

Very reasonable.

But, but, but it says on twitter that she harassed and misgendered a colleague in the workplace which made it an unsafe environment for people who are trans and so she deserved to lose her job because of that harassment!

Surely no one would change the facts to suit their narrative??

Surely no one would change the facts to suit their narrative??

It's foot shootingly counter-productive.

Because even if, initially, people get caught up in the lies, the truth gets published in the end. And they lose yet more credibility.

Not that they've got any more to lose.

#IStandWithMaya this is exactly my view. I contributed to her crowdfunder, too. I wish I dared share that screenshot publicly.

Thanks for this thread. Wierd how some people including journalists really want to characterise Maya as ‘rude’
As if that was relevant, or even if she was ever rude (which I have not seen) as if that would take something away from the truthfulness of her argument or from how shittily Maya has been treated.. I think she’d have every reason to be ‘rude’ if she wanted to be (and much more besides)!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3774946-Sarah-Baxter-in-The-Times?msgid=92516123#92516123

Wish Bewilderness was here but this feels like the rules of misogyny that

1. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
2. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

She has assembled all the 'offending' tweets now:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1209914779973931010.html?fbclid=IwAR39QwBupunbjEX_p6vNNEin6xQF7tNMJp0YDhjmOpx3hKXIB3R7YuNAfX8

Placemarking to read later, thanks OP

She has assembled all the 'offending' tweets now:

Thanks for the link and wow - way to twist the truth in order to shut a woman up, and impose punitive penalties.

If those tweets are examples of ‘transphobia’, no wonder some of our monitors have conniption fits about FWR.

People have been tweeting about my "transphobic tweets" but none have been linking to them. Presumably because those who searched my actual timeline thought 'meh'.

Exactly. And now every can indeed go 'meh'.

*everyone

Surely as the judgement attributes tweets and quotes to Maya which were clearly not her words then an appeal is possible? I will happily donate to a croudfunder for the appeal.

That's very enlightening isn't it?

CQ is a piece of work that’s for sure.
I hope this going to be appealed, women losing their jobs for having an opinion is outrageous.

It's foot shootingly counter-productive. Because even if, initially, people get caught up in the lies, the truth gets published in the end. And they lose yet more credibility.

Sadly, that's not always true. Look at the last UK election or the current US president.

The Maya ruling attacks the very principles of freedom the UK is built on. It will worry the shit out of many who wouldn't care about women's rights per-se.

Muddying the waters about the exact nature of the ruling is crucial to them.

I'm sure Field will be along soon to explain just what a dangerously slippery slope Maya was on with all this.

Good grief. Talk about cherry picking to twist a narrative! And that's a judgment made by a judge in a British court? No kangaroos?

Archived, just in case;
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191228121705/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1209914779973931010.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20191228121705/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1209914779973931010.html

Nothing wrong with what she said, indeed, she is quite right.

I’m assuming that was more of a warning shot than an invitation Lang?

so she deserved to lose her job because of that harassment!

She didn’t lose her job, her contract came to an end.

I’m assuming that was more of a warning shot than an invitation Lang

Just a prediction. Ipso fatso, as Molesworth would say.

IANAL or an HR specialist, but hadn't she been in that job long enough to have created a right to have her fixed-term contract extended automatically except in the case of performance or conduct issues? I have a vague recollection of hearing about this in relation to successive fixed-term contracts in HE settings.

Have a read of this to learn something about the relationship between Maya Forstater and CGD:

rangeofreasonableresponses.com/2019/12/19/forstater-v-cgd-europe-what-the-tribunal-actually-found/

The fifth paragraph in particular. I can't say that it's correct but it makes some sense of what we know.

Muddying the waters about the exact nature of the ruling is crucial to them.

On that note:

She didn’t lose her job, her contract came to an end.

This is posted over and over, despite being nothing to do with the case. I can understand one poster thinking they know more than they do and making an error, but it seems odd that it is repeated so much.

She didn’t lose her job, her contract came to an end

Annnnnnd once more, under UK law non-renewal of a contract is treated as dismissal in the circumstances that Maya was in - i.e. with 2 more years of work to undertake.