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

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?

Let’s imagine the workplace has - as I think they are required to have in law - a place where women can get changed for work. Let’s imagine MF says, ‘For the purposes of changing, I don’t perceive this person as female and I believe this is against the law.’

She might be right or wrong. That’s not the point here. That is a case for another day. The point is that she needs to be allowed to express her view without being discriminated against for it.

@AnneofScreamFables

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.

Yes, it was quoted by BC today.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

A's (Maya's) beliefs, which are similar to Professor Stock's & Harry Millers, do not interfere with transgender people's rights.

Knowles J: "differences in views perceived as motivated by racism, where racist utterances would tend to include a slur, or ridicule. But 'transwomen aren't women' contains no such pejorative element. Factual statement. 'Woman' is strictly synonymous with biological females. It's simply stating facts."

Who knows which way he'll jump on the topic but after steadfastly blocking people on the topic, Adam Wagner tweeted:

I hadn't appreciated that the Equality and Human Rights Commission was intervening in the Forstater case on the side of the appellant (Forstater)

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1387060820065017859

And I don’t believe it’s okay (to be clear) for people to harass, mock or abuse trans people. I just think ‘This is illegal’ is a weighty belief. People need to be able to express themselves in defence of their own rights.

wrt above - I should probably have added that Adam Wagner is a notable Human Rights lawyer who has been absent in plain sight while blocking those who asserted human rights include rights for women as a sex class.

To be fair, a number of knowledgeable individuals and public bodies had memory-holed the relevance of sex in law and in material reality.

And - yet again, I'm managing my expectations.

..

I don’t believe it’s okay (to be clear) for people to harass, mock or abuse trans people

When will we be able to accept this as our default and not have to preface everything with it - even when we have no record of harassing/mocking/abusing others in our private and professional lives (there are, of course, contested definitions of what those words mean in contexts).

When will we be able to accept this as our default and not have to preface everything with it - even when we have no record of harassing/mocking/abusing others in our private and professional lives (there are, of course, contested definitions of what those words mean in contexts).

I don’t mind. It’s clear there are irreconcilable views so it’s (maybe) helpful to express that mine aren’t malicious. I can’t help what I think.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

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?

Let’s imagine the workplace has - as I think they are required to have in law - a place where women can get changed for work. Let’s imagine MF says, ‘For the purposes of changing, I don’t perceive this person as female and I believe this is against the law.’

She might be right or wrong. That’s not the point here. That is a case for another day. The point is that she needs to be allowed to express her view without being discriminated against for it.

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

Why do you think that?

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

Possibly. I’m not sure how she would be able to make that argument, however, if her belief has been deemed ‘unworthy of respect...’ etc.

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

And to do that she'd have to say someone was a certain sex. She should be able to do that without losing her job...

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

I don’t believe it’s okay (to be clear) for people to harass, mock or abuse trans people

When will we be able to accept this as our default and not have to preface everything with it - even when we have no record of harassing/mocking/abusing others in our private and professional lives (there are, of course, contested definitions of what those words mean in contexts).

Agreed, it's so fucking tiresome.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

And I don’t believe it’s okay (to be clear) for people to harass, mock or abuse trans people. I just think ‘This is illegal’ is a weighty belief. People need to be able to express themselves in defence of their own rights.

Of course they do. And, if they can substitute 'trans' with any other description and say the same or a similar thing without a thought I'm sure it's too g to be filed u see 'reasonable concern'.

And I don’t believe it’s okay (to be clear) for people to harass, mock or abuse trans people

No-one I know in RL does this. Quite the opposite.

I've met plenty of men who harrass, mock and abuse women though. And as for online - it's off the scale.

Of course they do. And, if they can substitute 'trans' with any other description and say the same or a similar thing without a thought I'm sure it's too g to be filed u see 'reasonable concern'.

Such as what, though?

I've met plenty of men who harrass, mock and abuse women though. And as for online - it's off the scale.

Yes.

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

Yet again another incorrect reading of the EqA.

WRT female toilet provision at work, a previous thread:

JackyHolyoake wrote (in response to Robin White), Fri 24-May-19
"But it won’t be respectful if, when speaking or writing about me, you call me, as a trans woman, ‘he’ or deny my right to use the facilities society has decided I should have, such as my right to use the bathroom of my affirmed gender should I visit premises under your control? "

No such right exists. The Equality Act 2010 is clear about that via Schedule 3 [Services and public functions: exceptions], Part 7 [Separate, single and concessionary services, etc], sections 26 [Separate services for the sexes], 27 [Single-sex services] and 28 [Gender reassignment]:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3593037-Weve-never-believed-in-silencing-debate?pg=2

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

In what sense?

@titchy

I would think she would have to ask her organisation to use an exemption to the EA2010 showing that their policy was reasonable and proportionate with the other of achieving a legitimate aim.

And to do that she'd have to say someone was a certain sex. She should be able to do that without losing her job...

Of course she would and to do that we would have to accept that Maya is the arbiter of who looks male or female enough. I'm personally not that comfortable with a tax researcher being given that much power. However, it's Brexit supporting conservative leaning Britain that holds the balance of power so I'll just have to hope for the best.

Of course she would and to do that we would have to accept that Maya is the arbiter of who looks male or female enough. I'm personally not that comfortable with a tax researcher being given that much power.

Yes, I'm pretty sure there's no great superpower needed in 99.9% of cases.

I'm personally not that comfortable with a tax researcher being given that much power

Who has that power, then?

Of course she would and to do that we would have to accept that Maya is the arbiter of who looks male or female enough. I'm personally not that comfortable with a tax researcher being given that much power. However, it's Brexit supporting conservative leaning Britain that holds the balance of power so I'll just have to hope for the best.

You really do not understand the Law around the GRA or EqA at all do you?

.