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

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

From the skeleton and today's evidence, the case for overturning the verdict looks very strong. I think it will be hard to make a case to appeal to a higher court (and I doubt Maya's former employer would try this.

I have form for managing my expectations. My protective reactions are no reflection upon the merits of Maya's case nor the excellence of her team and the other interventions.

(I realise that this is just a stage in MF's overall case against CGD - the next determination might well be to establish that this was part of the nibbling away at and then rescinding of a contract.)

This is a good point. What actually happens if the original judgment is overturned? Does Maya need to mount a new claim to get compensation for unfair dismissal?

This was a preliminary issue. This means it was small in terms of time to discuss, discrete, and critical. When Maya lost, she couldn’t take the other bit any further because she needed to win this to get to that.

If she wins this round, as long as the other side do not appeal, the main issue will then get to be heard (unless of course they settle or one side pulls out).

Shizuku

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

You consistently refer to people in ways that they have repeatedly told you they find offensive. I would argue that deliberate misgendering is entirely reasonable in such circumstances. BUT, women tend to be nice, and are actually going out of their way not to misgender, including MF. You are critizing MF for doing things she hasn't done but you do. It is beyond belief.

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.

Like when she’s politely asking a trans woman to get out of the female toilets?

Should she want to.

And we're back to toilets...

Like when she’s politely asking a trans woman to get out of the female toilets?

Yes.

If she is politely asking someone to do something, the pronoun would be ‘you’.

If she is discussing a workplace policy on single sex toilets with HR, then I don’t know, because the situation did not arise, but I would think may be one where correct sexing is important.

If she is discussing a workplace policy on single sex toilets with HR, then I don’t know, because the situation did not arise, but I would think may be one where correct sexing is important.

Exactly. The TRAs require MF’s views on biological sex existing and being relevant to equal discrimination, regardless of how ‘polite’ she is. The arguments put forward today (in my opinion) demonstrate that they don’t.

Quite simply, the Equality Act says sex is a protected characteristic. Ergo, sex exists. Ergo, MF is legally able to talk about it, and her ability to do so shouldn’t be wiped out by the existence of trans-identifying people.

I think we can safely say that Daily Mail readers are standing with Maya.

Tax expert who lost employment tribunal after tweet appears at appeal
mol.im/a/9516987

The world all seems a bit unfathomable to me. I try to look at a successful appeal on a practical front. I went through transition a long time ago. For twenty years plus, I've lived my life without any meaningful reference to the reality that I was born male other than private conversations with my GP. Does a successful appeal mean that Maya, if she were to know my birth sex, would be able to address or speak about me as 'he' in public (I don't care what she does in private) without any redress even if I found that upsetting? Subsequently, if that is the case, would my employer be able to say that my distress is tenable because her belief was protected? I'd like to say I'm asking for a friend but, that luxury sailed decades ago.

And we're back to toilets...

You make it sound like it’s a nonissue.

For twenty years plus, I've lived my life without any meaningful reference to the reality that I was born male other than private conversations with my GP

You might want to consider what women in your vicinity find meaningful.

Steph - those things haven’t been fully tested. My view is that in a situation where your sex had no relevance, it may be harassment to say he/his - as in ‘His knowledge of France’s tax law is admirable’, for example. However, in the workplace where sex was relevant, it would be permissible eg ‘he cannot play on our netball team as the rules of the league say it is single sex’.

I think in practice people would probably get round it. As in ‘Steph is not allowed to strip search women as searches need to be done by an officer of the same sex’.

However, it is important to realise that if someone is obviously male, it takes a huge amount of effort to remember to say ‘she’. A number of people may not be able to do that.

You make it sound like it’s a nonissue.

I agree. To a person who believes they’re indistinguishable from any other woman (despite being born male) this must be an issue of profound importance. But women’s safety is an issue of profound importance. Free speech and freedom of thought are issues of profound importance.

I get it, and I have a lot of sympathy for transidentifying people. But that sympathy doesn’t extend to tyranny over others.

@Anovaneway

And we're back to toilets...

You make it sound like it’s a nonissue.

I think the fundamental issue is the trans orthodoxy's insistent that any and all conversation on the subject is literal nazi-ism that is the fundamental issue. That's the point you lost me.

I'm not sure how much toilets are an issue, but then again, as a man, I have no right to dictate to women that they give up the rights they acquired due to their biological sex. I think it's OUTRAGEOUS if any biological male thinks they have a right to take those rights away however much they are a woman.

MF is not fighting for the right to pointlessly offend.

I'd like to say I'm asking for a friend but, that luxury sailed decades ago.

The Fawcett Society and others have dodged a relevant question that might be the flipside of the above concerning whether they'd consider there to be sex equality if the govt. comprised 50% men and 50% transwomen. (TFS didn't object to the assertion that it would be dandy.)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3365084-fawcett-society

Given the captured nature of major organisations and the misunderstanding around EqA plus the misinterpretation by the EHRC for far too long - claiming the material reality of sex doesn't matter has long since manifested itself as a luxury belief.

Steph
As stated above a distinction is drawn between having a belief and manifesting that belief.

Why do you think someone would want to refer to you as he? There may be circumstances where it could be justified (for example if you collapsed and someone mentioned to the paramedics) and circumstances where it would be wrong (eg deliberate bullying)

‘My distress is tenable because her belief is protected’ - this is what equality laws are all about.

Should an ultra Orthodox male Jew be disciplined for refusing to shake hands with a female colleague? Or a female customer? Should a catholic doctor be able to refuse to perform an abortion? Or to refuse to tell someone how to get an abortion?

Or in non-equality areas - should a doctor tell a patient to lose weight before an operation if it would improve their chances of survival? How about if that doctor knew the patient had tried and tried and not lost weight up to that point?

No one has the right to be fully protected from all distress.

In reality, the only meaningful thing I experience thatis a conversation with my Gp or any other medical professional that would need to know, for diagnostic reasons what my sex was at birth. What I'm interested in is that if a person, for example Maya, found out that I wasn't born female, would she be free to be rude to me without my having the redress to my position being untenable because she had a protected belief?

Does a successful appeal mean that Maya, if she were to know my birth sex, would be able to address or speak about me as 'he' in public (I don't care what she does in private) without any redress even if I found that upsetting?

Of course a person may use male sex pronouns to refer to someone who is male sex. Whether people do or not is a matter of courtesy not compunction.

would she be free to be rude to me without my having the redress to my position being untenable because she had a protected belief?
Would you consider her right to address material reality "rude"?

What I'm interested in is that if a person, for example Maya, found out that I wasn't born female, would she be free to be rude to me without my having the redress to my position being untenable because she had a protected belief?

The Equality Act does not prohibit people from "being rude".

If the ‘being rude’ amounted to harassment then that would not be allowed in the workplace.

On the street, ‘being rude’ would need to amount to an incitement to violence or similar to turn it into a crime, because of the right to free speech.

But if the ‘being rude’ was to express concern that you should not strip search females as you are male, then I think it would be allowed.

All my personal opinion though.

@Steph751

In reality, the only meaningful thing I experience thatis a conversation with my Gp or any other medical professional that would need to know, for diagnostic reasons what my sex was at birth. What I'm interested in is that if a person, for example Maya, found out that I wasn't born female, would she be free to be rude to me without my having the redress to my position being untenable because she had a protected belief?

It's perfectly legal to be rude to people! As others have said and given examples of, context is everything.