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

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?

No. She wouldn’t be free to abuse you at work. She might well be free to challenge you. But challenge isn’t abuse.

would she be free to be rude to me

Everyone should have the freedom to be rude, or offensive or hurtful. There is no protection in law against hurt feelings.

What isn't allowed is harassment, or hate speech.

Particularly when, as was alluded to today, the beliefs being voiced are aligned with the law.

If being rude was illegal we wouldn't have AIBU....

No one is legally protected from being upset.

Newsflash: women are upset left, right and centre every day, sometimes at work, and we have to behave like adults and self regulate our own emotions.

Transwomen have to learn to regulate their upset that not all women agree sex is mutable, or that woman is a gender category.

DBT is useful for those who have poor distress tolerance.

No. She wouldn’t be free to abuse you at work. She might well be free to challenge you. But challenge isn’t abuse.

The point of Maya Forstater's case is establishing that a woman should not be discriminated against (to the extent of losing her job) for expressing her considered belief that sex is immutable and matters in particular aspects of life.

There appears to be some reversal/DARVO patterns emerging.

What is interesting (and I think came up in Harry Miller’s case) is the statement ‘X is a man’ is generally taken as a neutral statement of fact. It is neither positive or negative to be male rather than female. Rather like ‘Y has blue eyes’.

So the statement ‘X is a man’ is probably not rude, even if X would prefer to be referred to as a woman.

The point of Maya Forstater's case is establishing that a woman should not be discriminated against (to the extent of losing her job) for expressing her considered belief that sex is immutable and matters in particular aspects of life.

Precisely true.

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?

PPs have explained the difference between holding a belief and the manifestation of a belief. There are several examples upthread that discuss that nobody with a protected characteristic has the right to harass others on the basis of a protected belief or characteristic - and equally none may be harassed for not holding that belief or characteristic.

As others indicate, it might become an open question as to some people's threshold for 'rude' (was Mrs B in Miller's case?) or harassment. (An issue that was recognised as early as McPherson.)

Are you apprehensive that a workplace that abides by people's preferences might, in some undefined circumstances that you deem to be irrelevant, withhold the use of preferences when you'd rather that workplace is compelled to use them? - Even when they have no material reality?

@R0wantrees

No. She wouldn’t be free to abuse you at work. She might well be free to challenge you. But challenge isn’t abuse.

The point of Maya Forstater's case is establishing that a woman should not be discriminated against (to the extent of losing her job) for expressing her considered belief that sex is immutable and matters in particular aspects of life.

There appears to be some reversal/DARVO patterns emerging.

There have been for some time with regards to this case. The Twitter hysteria around the issues doesn't help.

Not only is the statement, "X is a man" neutral but it may use the definition of man (male of any age) from the Equality Act 2010, also used by UK government.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

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?

No. She wouldn’t be free to abuse you at work. She might well be free to challenge you. But challenge isn’t abuse.

If it's not work related and no pass are broken, immediate safety aside, she has th.e right to dhallenge me about what?

I see what’s meant now: no, statements of fact and deeply held belief aren’t abuse. The attempt to characterise them as such is fundamentally flawed. These rights exist in law.

If it's not work related and no pass are broken, immediate safety aside, she has th.e right to dhallenge me about what?

Could you write that again so I know exactly what I’m replying to?

It might be easier if you have an example of what you are worried that she may be allowed to say?

There appears to be some reversal/DARVO patterns emerging.

Isn't there just. The reams and reams of instances on this board where women are more than just distressed by wholesale changes to their work environment being sneaked it and then draconically imposed, the misuse and misrepresentations of laws, especially the EQA, that are being used to the absolute detriment of women.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

The point of Maya Forstater's case is establishing that a woman should not be discriminated against (to the extent of losing her job) for expressing her considered belief that sex is immutable and matters in particular aspects of life.

Precisely true.

As far as I know, they decided not to renew her contract.

Our beliefs may overlap here in that I can't stand the Tory idea of short term contracts of zero hours agreements experience etc..

f it's not work related and no pass are broken, immediate safety aside, she has th.e right to dhallenge me about what?

You started with the tangential hypotheticals. This is an employment tribunal, it has no bearing on anything else.

What about the very real distress of women who get the dreaded pronouns email and are worried about their job if the refuse. The sinking feeling when a company or public equality policy fails to mention sex at all even though it’s a protected characteristic where women are scared of the repercussions of raising the fact that they have misstated the law.

This judgment helps those women. The women who have been forced into silence by fear for their job. You cannot coerce people into sharing your beliefs.

As far as I know, they decided not to renew her contract.

You need to familiarise yourself with the case, this is more than just deciding not to renew her contract.

• As far as I know, they decided not to renew her contract.

Our beliefs may overlap here in that I can't stand the Tory idea of short term contracts of zero hours agreements experience etc..*

Well, no, nor can I. But - according to employment law in this country - failure to renew a contract can still be discriminatory.

As far as I know, they decided not to renew her contract.

That will be a matter for the next stage of the tribunal should it progress. It would be futile to claim knowledge of the details which are yet to be heard.

@R0wantrees

As far as I know, they decided not to renew her contract.

That will be a matter for the next stage of the tribunal should it progress. It would be futile to claim knowledge of the details which are yet to be heard.

Doesn't usually stop some of our fellow posters though does it

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

If it's not work related and no pass are broken, immediate safety aside, she has th.e right to dhallenge me about what?

Could you write that again so I know exactly what I’m replying to?

Yes sorry, 'if it's not work related and no laws are broken' immediate safety aside, she has the right to challenge me (personally) about what?

Why not read up on free speech laws?