Maya Forstater finally has a date for her appeal!

[yourhairiswinterfire]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1317491923536564226

27-28th April 21.

From the Crowd Justice update too: The free speech organisation Index on Censorship has also been given permission to intervene to highlight the legal issues around freedom of speech.

I've got everything crossed that she'll be vindicated and some sanity will be restored.

Hopefully we're just being pessimistic! We'll see i guess.

I'm hopeful about Indexes contribution. I know Jodie was expressing concerns about the reach of employers in censoring their employees freedom of speech. I'm not sure about Ruth Smeeth's position on trans issue but I'm pretty sure the board will be behind Maya.

I don't understand this conclusion by the judge at point 90. she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society

from memory I don't recall Maya 'misgendering' anyone other than once by accident (?), which is not the same as deliberately and repeatedly doing it to be intimidating and hostile..

Thanks for the link thread IDon't

Hi -

Thanks all!

A few clairifications:

1. Don't worry about the day-countdown timer thing - They give you a timer at the beginning for the the first target, but after that because it is a long case it just just keeps cycling round

2. Philosophy or Belief. Yes it is the only ground we could plead this. It doesn't mean "not true" the case law (Grainger v Nichols) is about climate change the belief that it is its real and important we take urgent action - so my belief is sex is real, immutable & important - while someone else might belief that sex is not important , and validating their gender identity is (and public policies, laws and rules can deal with reality while also accommodating belief where possible)..... We also pleaded my lack of belief in gender ideology (like "gender atheism").

3. Index's intervention is a good thing. It will be done by Aileen McColgan QC who will make legal arguments about freedom of speech.

Separately I am a bit concerned about the direction that Index is going on this topic. I hope it is only that Ruth hasn't paid as much attention to the topic as Jodie had.

I've written my thoughts about that here:

medium.com/@MForstater/index-on-censorship-please-keep-standing-up-strongly-for-freedom-of-speech-on-sex-and-gender-ec01687cef37

Thank you for that Maya.

I've written my thoughts about that here

good article.

I really agreed with your article Maya. They do need to be neutral on this (or any political issues) but they should understand the reality of the environment regarding speech on this issue, and can't actually maintain genuine neutrality to protect everyone's right to speak without understanding it. Otherwise they will just inadvertantly add to the completely disfunctional environment. Your point that they need to think through how this dysfunctional situation has arisen is spot on.

I just don't get it,
But sex IS real, binary, immutable and important

Correct.

Tl;dr: Maya Forstater wants the right to call trans women ‘men’ at work to be protected, and not forbidden.

@Moonbasealpha

I just don't get it, But sex IS real, binary, immutable and important

Correct.

Tl;dr: Maya Forstater wants the right to call trans women ‘men’ at work to be protected, and not forbidden.

She's already said numerous times, including in her hearing, that she would respect someone's preferred pronouns and use them, so that's nonsense, just like the trans colleague Maya supposedly harassed was made up nonsense too, because said colleague didn't even exist.

What we all want is the right to tell the truth where it matters. Like it or not, it does matter in plenty of circumstances that TW are biological males.

She's already said numerous times, including in her hearing, that she would respect someone's preferred pronouns and use them,

Yes she has. She is also simultaneously fighting for the right not to use them if she wished not to.

We all have the right not to use any pronouns if we choose not to. For instance, we can use no pronouns at all. There is no compelled speech in the UK, is there?

@Moonbasealpha

She's already said numerous times, including in her hearing, that she would respect someone's preferred pronouns and use them,

Yes she has. She is also simultaneously fighting for the right not to use them if she wished not to.

She's fighting for the right to be able to say a male is a male in the circumstances where the fact that someone is a male is the only characteristic which matters.

Including basic things like statistics on fairness - such as pointing out under-representation of females; one of the things that Maya was talking about was in relation to some article about "manels" (horrible portmanteau). A panel consisting of two men and two transwomen would 100% male and 0% female.

The argument is that it is important to be able to point that out sex imbalance, if it's a recurring problem.

Some of the most extreme gender activists would claim that one not be permitted to complain about (or even point out) the 0% female presence. (On grounds of "misgendering" or whatever).

Yes, some of the most extreme TRAs. I don’t think most transsexual people or the rest of the real world would have a problem with accepting that a panel of 2 men and 2 trans women would not represent most women. You can do that without misgendering and still be respectful. Just as you can oppose self ID and be respectful - as the original judgement pointed out.

If Maya were to be successful then that would pave the way for anyone anywhere to misgender TM and TW and not recognise their legal sex in any way whatsoever. Currently the former would be classed as harassment and the latter illegal.

Thanks for posting, I'll add to my past donation.

Moonbasealpha: If Maya were to be successful then that would pave the way for anyone anywhere to misgender TM and TW and not recognise their legal sex in any way whatsoever. Currently the former would be classed as harassment and the latter illegal.

This is nonsense. The question at issue is whether Maya's belief is protected, not James Tayler's fantasies about how she might manifest that belief.

It's perfectly possible for the law to protect a belief while also preventing harrassment. For example, the law protects a belief in climate change while criminalizing direct action to shut down airports. Maya's beliefs around sex present no particular difficulty in this regard, unless you are a TRA who demands public professions of belief in genderwoo from everyone.

”If Maya were to be successful then that would pave the way for anyone anywhere to misgender TM and TW and not recognise their legal sex in any way whatsoever.”

It really really wouldn’t. Apart from anything else, the only issue being examined at the next hearing is whether the belief itself is a protected one.

Many religions believe if you do not follow their beliefs then after you die you will go to hell (and this is generally a great sadness for them). They do not go around the workplace saying that to all non-believers but if asked they are allowed to say so, if involved in a religious group then they are allowed to discuss it, they can tweet about it, they can invite you to come to a religious service or to join a discussion about it. You cannot sack them for tweeting from a personal account about their beliefs eg saying they will pray for all non-believers that they may believe and not go to hell.

But the judgement made the distinction between having the belief which was said to be perfectly fine, and expressing that belief in certain ways, which isn’t.

@Moonbasealpha

But the judgement made the distinction between having the belief which was said to be perfectly fine, and expressing that belief in certain ways, which isn’t.

No it said the belief was definitely not fine (though other tribunals found otherwise) and made assumptions about behaviour which had no basis in fact.

would not represent most women.

Or any, in fact.

Thanks petherbridge for that climate change analogy . I'll be stealing that!

@petherbridge
Maya has tweeted your post!

preens

As an aside, I'm pleased that moonbasealpha has so clearly revealed their fundamental misunderstanding both of the original judgement in Maya's case and also of her appeal. I shan't hold my breath for their retraction.

If Maya were to be successful then that would pave the way for anyone anywhere to misgender TM and TW and not recognise their legal sex in any way whatsoever.

If legal sex is what matters, most trans people do not have a GRC, and thus most transwomen are legally men.