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

Do you believe that all your co workers assume you are a biological female, Steph?

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.*

Done be so silly. If Maya was incorrect there's no need for anything further. Maya isn't asking to be arbiter, merely to be able to ask the question.

It's being able to say that sex is real, without fear of losing ones job, that is the issue. Not someone's gaydar/transdar or any other characteristic-dar.

Must admit I'm enjoying the hyperbole and passive aggressiveness.

Maya Forstater
What is at stake?
(extract)
I think it is worth it because of what is at stake.
What is at stake is the ability to have open debate, and the integrity and effectiveness of organisations that enable democracy and an open society.
A positive judgment would bring some protection. Robust protection for those who hold and express beliefs that are unpopular are important to democracy.
But people will still have to be brave. Because most cases of discrimination don’t come to court. The chilling effect on people’s careers of expressing unpopular thoughts is most often not felt through the formal mechanisms of disciplinary processes and P45s, but through social shunning, economic and social doors closed, careers damaged in ways too subtle to bring to court.
Ultimately it is not the law which stops people saying things, or enables them to say them. That is just a backstop. It is cultures. It is people.
The NGO the Index on Censorship think that my case is important enough to intervene. So does the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK’s official body with the mandate to protect everybody’s rights." (continues)

Keeping silent (or anonymous) is understandable if you support me. You may be fearful of outing yourself . Not everyone can afford to speak up in public (but you can join and support Sex Matters).
But if you can speak up, then do — think about what is at stake."
mforstater.medium.com/what-is-at-stake-18a8da1af6b7

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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?

In the sense that an exemption isn't automatic, as far as I understand it's something an organisation can enforce when it's proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim. As far as I know, both are yet to be tested in court. I suppose the reason for that is that the subject of the test will be a very vulnerable person that when all considered no one really wants to proudly admit throwing to the wolves even if they really for like trans women.

You have just said upthread that you are male, Steph. What has appearance got to do with it?

Must admit I'm enjoying the hyperbole and passive aggressiveness.
Very familiar to trans widows.

You still think all of this is about throwing trans people to the wolves??
I suggest you are not posting here in good faith. Surprise surprise.
This used to be grounds for banning.

@TinselAngel

Must admit I'm enjoying the hyperbole and passive aggressiveness. Very familiar to trans widows.

I'll bet, Tinsel.

the subject of the test will be a very vulnerable person
How so?

In the sense that an exemption isn't automatic, as far as I understand it's something an organisation can enforce when it's proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

The "exemption" only becomes an issue when someone takes you to court as a service provider/employer if they feel they have a case against you on the grounds of discrimination or harassment due to one or more of the protected characteristics. You don't have to apply for anything. A court will determine whether or not the action taken was proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

Is this Steph who has a website dedicated to slagging off Fair Play for Women?

Naomi Cunningham QC (Women & Equalities Committee Oral evidence: Reform of the Gender Recognition
Act, HC 884
Wednesday 10 February 2021)
(extract)
Just a tiny point on language. Can we try to talk about the “exceptions” in the Equality Act, not the “exemptions”, because “exemptions” makes them sound like something special that has to be applied for, and they are not. The general rule is that you cannot discriminate in various circumstances and there are exceptions to those rules, and those exceptions always apply in the circumstances where they apply. You do not have to make a special application for an exemption from the rule; they are just situations where the rule does not apply. That may be a very small, lawyerly point, but I think that is a clearer way to think about it"

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1693/default/

She did also write about pulling a young boy or girls pants down for purposes she couldn't realistically be expected to explain in a police interview.

I know which screenshot you are referring to, and it was a ridiculous doctored one.

Has Maya's case upset you Steph?

Do post it though, and we can all opine on it's likely veracity or otherwise.

*Its likely veracity

The general rule is that you cannot discriminate in various circumstances and there are exceptions to those rules, and those exceptions always apply in the circumstances where they apply. You do not have to make a special application for an exemption from the rule; they are just situations where the rule does not apply. That may be a very small, lawyerly point, but I think that is a clearer way to think about it

That's a massive point, actually, from Naomi Cunningham QC.

Shall we return focus to Maya Forstater's Appeal? Neither it or this thread is about Steph's feelings.

I think that's a fundamental point made by Naomi Cunningham QC

Single sex is permitted discrimination in the Equality Act. Assuming you can ignore it because of your appearance or preference is an incorrect assumption. It doesn't need case law to be permitted discrimination, it already is.

EHRC may be finally getting around to removing their misleading guidance.

That's a massive point, actually, from Naomi Cunningham QC.

Yes definitely. I think this is a common misunderstanding, that you have to apply for some sort of official endorsement of your single sex space.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

In the sense that an exemption isn't automatic, as far as I understand it's something an organisation can enforce when it's proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

The "exemption" only becomes an issue when someone takes you to court as a service provider/employer if they feel they have a case against you on the grounds of discrimination or harassment due to one or more of the protected characteristics. You don't have to apply for anything. A court will determine whether or not the action taken was proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

I think you are right, it's on a service provider to use an excemption. In some cases it will be absolutely proportionate, especially in some DV shelters why wouldn't it be? Personally, I think this is an area where a consensus could be reached.

Don't let this thread get deleted. Focus. It's an important thread.