Maya Forstater's appeal skeleton

[Mollyollydolly]

Saw this on twitter and thought it deserved a thread to itself.

As Jason Braler (employment lawyer) says on twitter "It's more a thesis than a traditional skeleton, but it certainly drives home the points from every conceivable angle.
It may also be the only ever EAT skeleton to have 4 references to Orwell"

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

Perhaps this link to the myths and realities of what happened, and what this case is about might help

mforstater.medium.com/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489

Myth: I (Maya) misgendered a colleague

Truth: There was no trans colleague. There was no complaint to CGD that I “misgendered” anyone. There was no complaint of harassment or bullying. This is because there was no harassment or bullying.

Myth: Maya would like to be allowed to mis gender colleagues

Truth: I have repeatedly said, both directly to CGD and in my witness statement, and under intense cross examination at the hearing, that I am willing to use preferred pronouns, and of course treat individuals with respect.

You’ve seen the person who complained and the pronoun she used for them? 1+1 there...

As in an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.

The setting up of those two phrases as though they’re always mutually exclusive. To propagate as fact that recognising trans rights, including those enshrined in law via the GRA means that children aren’t safe. That recognising people’s acquired sex is incompatible with safety.
Also what therefore follows is that the only way we can keep women and girls safe is by being able to call trans women men.

This is my statement, it should not in any context be controversial since it is rooted in Child Protection principles.

"What should be unthinkable is the prioritisation of adult male feelings/demands of identity validation over the welfare and Safeguarding of children."

This will be much like that ruling in favour of the weirdos who wouldn’t bake a cake for two gay people. Lots of crying and screaming and shouting for years but.. did it do anything useful for them and their cause when they eventually won? Most people just thought the bakers were a pair of total wankers. Didn’t change a thing unless I’m forgetting something.

Well, it kind of set a precedent in favour of not being forced to endorse a message that goes against your strongly felt beliefs.

And it wasn't about the cake but the message, which is why they won.

And it wasn't about the cake but the message, which is why they won.

When a a side is not able to accurately represent the fundamental issues at play in a case, that reveals that they know they're holding a losing hand.

I suppose that would need to be tested in court. Note, though, that MF says she usually is happy to use preferred pronouns as a courtesy.

Of course MF is.

But someone else might not be, and then claim they have that right as it is now a protected belief.

But would they really?

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

How about deliberately misgendering a colleague?

I suppose that would need to be tested in court. Note, though, that MF says she usually is happy to use preferred pronouns as a courtesy.

As a courtesy? That sounds rather coercive - be compliant or I will misgender you.

Sex Matters live tweeting:

"A's response to Gregor Murray's complaint to Scouts regarding her speech. "I reserve the right to use male pronouns to refer to male people. Nobody can compel others to refer inaccurately to someone's sex. It's important for safeguarding that we can distinguish between...
the sexes to determine difference between single- & mixed-sex accommodation. It's important for children to be able to know & say what sex someone is."

"We might avoid noting someone's sex to be polite or kind, we cannot be compelled to do so. Avoiding upsetting some males is no reason to do away with women's ability to set boundaries and preserve their dignity."

Again, Shizuku, you are making things up that aren't in the case. Why don't you read the case and comment on what's actually in it?

When a a side is not able to accurately represent the fundamental issues at play in a case, that reveals that they know they're holding a losing hand.

Very true.

More coercive than compelled speech??

@Sophoclesthefox

Thanks that is helpful .

Can I ask how she knew her tweets were the reason for her contracts not being renewed?

courtesy

/ˈkəːtɪsi/

noun

the showing of politeness in one's attitude and behaviour towards others.

As a courtesy? That sounds rather coercive - be compliant or I will misgender you.

I don’t think it does. It means she’ll use preferred pronouns to be polite, but she reserves the right to use sex-based pronouns when she needs to discuss biological sex rather than gender roles.

Pronouns are sex based in English.

@R0wantrees

There are different types of workplace including those where people work with children and/or vulnerable adults where denying the sex of colleagues by using incorrect sex-based pronouns would be a failure of Duty of Care.

All adults have a responsibility to Safeguard children.

This cannot be repeated often enough!

Why are some adults determined to undermine safeguarding of children? It’s very illuminating

That someone appears to be you, Shizuku

[quote Unsure33]@Sophoclesthefox

Thanks that is helpful .

Can I ask how she knew her tweets were the reason for her contracts not being renewed?[/quote]
Well, I don’t believe there is a smoking gun, no-one has been helpful enough to write down that they’re sacking her because she tweets about women’s rights. But the timing is too convenient- as I understand it, around the time that the CDg started to look at her tweets, she’d just been instrumental in helping to win a large piece of funding for work that was specific to her skill set, and in the ordinary course of things, it would be a routine matter for her contract to be renewed in order for her to do the work the funding was for...

Can I ask how she knew her tweets were the reason for her contracts not being renewed?

That's not in play for this case. This is just determining if the beliefs are protected.

If Maya wins this hearing, demonstrating that will be the next stage. They'll have been requesting all sorts of internal documents from CGD to demonstrate that.

@GreyhoundG1rl

That someone appears to be you, Shizuku

@shizuku perhaps you could, I don't know, read what Maya actually says and the actual judgement rather than spout your usual crap. You are wrong. As in actually demonstrably wrong. And you insist on deliberately misinterpreting what people say to paint us all as transphobes. Come back with a proper argument or go do something more productive with your time than post incorrect information on a board. Seriously.

The question is, would certain people rather annoy their opponents and harm their own cause, or not annoy their opponents and not harm their own cause.

People are watching and reading. If you spend your time just spouting nonsense, lots of people can see that.

And lots of people scroll on by and never bother reading some people's posts at all.

Sorry, misleading, as a consequence of reading spouted rubbish...

[quote Mollyollydolly]Here is the submission from the EHRC. Only short - well worth a read.

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf[/quote]
Wow, that EHRC submission!

I thought I read that the Employment Judge was promoted after the case. What happens now? The ENRC says he got things wrong and was biassed. Will there be some kind of enquiry?