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

@Melroses

I think they're making quite a good case for repealing

The GRA came into being because it was for a very small number of people who already lived this way, so wouldn't affect wider society. It is unworkable once it involves wider society.

I was surprised, during the Census debacle, how many quite prominent TRAs said they didn't have a GRC, and that it was "pointless". Paris Lees was one of them. I think I can guess which facilities Paris uses, regardless.

I don't support completely repealing the GRA, but I definitely think it needs some re-writing and tightening up. And something needs to be done about the self id by the back door which is going on.

I don't support completely repealing the GRA, but I definitely think it needs some re-writing and tightening up. And something needs to be done about the self id by the back door which is going on.

Agree.

Genuinely trans individuals need to have their status recognised - but self-ID, without any medical/psychiatric confirmation, and no need to have surgical/hormonal intervention is far too open to abuse by violent, misogynists and by self-interested opportunists (eg mediocre sportsmen who will never get anywhere competing with their own sex, but who easily outstrip women).

"I was surprised, during the Census debacle, how many quite prominent TRAs said they didn't have a GRC, and that it was "pointless"."

You only need one in circumstances where you are expected to produce your birth certificate and for some tax purposes, so for many trans people it doesn't make much difference because they are not in situations where they need their birth certificate. For trans people getting married though, where you are married according to your birth certificate for example, it can be very important, because most women don;t want to be legally regarded as a husband.

I don’t think the argument works. Misgendering is not necessarily discriminatory it really depends on context and being offensive or rude is not the same as discrimination.

I imagine that even if Maya wins this case, misgendering could still be considered to be harassment in the workplace (depending on the circumstances and if it's deliberate etc.)

I was surprised, during the Census debacle, how many quite prominent TRAs said they didn't have a GRC, and that it was "pointless". Paris Lees was one of them. I think I can guess which facilities Paris uses, regardless.

The Gender Recognition Act functions to conflate sex/gender/gender identity. This was a stated aim of Press For Change (the primary lobby group).
The process of GRC application enables anyone to obtain official documentation stating the opposite sex. Some would claim it encourages this.
For an Act of Parliament intended to 'Recognise Gender' it is remarkable in failing to adequately define it.

I don't support completely repealing the GRA, but I definitely think it needs some re-writing and tightening up.

Through the over-generalisation, misrepresentation, and abuse of its provisions, I regret that I have felt compelled to harden my stance on the matter in the face of too many 'never happen' events and stupidities such as sporting bodies, Girl Guides, Police Scotland ,and the Census (the ONS for crying out loud - what was their thinking?).

Repeal the GRA.

For trans people getting married though, where you are married according to your birth certificate for example, it can be very important, because most women don;t want to be legally regarded as a husband.

Yet when arguing around the spousal exit clause, trans widows marital status with regards to whether they're legally married to a male or a female, is apparently not important at all

I imagine that even if Maya wins this case, misgendering could still be considered to be harassment in the workplace (depending on the circumstances and if it's deliberate etc.)

Recognising sex accurately (including using she/her third person singular pronouns) is not 'misgendering'. The conflation of sex and gender continues to obscure.
English pronouns are sex based.

it’s not correct to say that sex is immutable and that’s reflected in the law

Jesus

Also nonsense

The exceptions in the EA clearly recognise that sex is a thing

Men can gestate babies now?

Alert the press!

@Signalbox

I don’t think the argument works. Misgendering is not necessarily discriminatory it really depends on context and being offensive or rude is not the same as discrimination.

I imagine that even if Maya wins this case, misgendering could still be considered to be harassment in the workplace (depending on the circumstances and if it's deliberate etc.)

Correctly stating a fact about someone can be harassment in tons of cases - depending on context - biological sex isn't some new and unusual unique case. If you followed a Black man around saying "Black man" repeatedly then of course that could be harassment. It doesn't mean in the relevant circumstances it's wrong (morally or factually) to say he's Black. Does this really actually need explaining?

I am so glued to the live tweeting, I don't understand it, all these issues chucked in like a box of smarties.
We've had it compared today by the (junior barrister?) to holocaust denial, Nazism, we've just had definitions of sexual intercourse, now she's saying 'it's not correct to say that sex is immutable...'
wtf??

HL came to a different view. Lord Nicholls was reluctant to acknowledge that a man can literally become a woman. He was wrong about that.

But Parliament has legislated on this and produced the GRA.

Other parties rely on Elan-Cane. That was about requirement to state sex on passport as male or female. Court found no violation; didn't consider the GRA. Now we have the GRA, things are different.

It's not correct to say that sex is immutable and that's reflected in the law.

Schedule 3 to the EqA provides exceptions, but that doesn't mean sex is immutable.

I guess "literally" now means "I've written it down on a form".

You only need one in circumstances where you are expected to produce your birth certificate and for some tax purposes, so for many trans people it doesn't make much difference because they are not in situations where they need their birth certificate.

The passport is the primary UK identification document. It is based on the birth certificate and so acts as a proxy confirmation. UK passports should not have the sex marker changed unless the birth certificate has been changed.

@TinselAngel

For trans people getting married though, where you are married according to your birth certificate for example, it can be very important, because most women don;t want to be legally regarded as a husband.

Yet when arguing around the spousal exit clause, trans widows marital status with regards to whether they're legally married to a male or a female, is apparently not important at all

Yet more Heads I win, Tails you lose, everything, absolutely everything must go in their favour.

Ouch
KMQC has just corrected JR

“ The paragraph JR read out is preceded by a paragraph that says case law says sex is immutable”

We have an interruption:

KMQC: I hesitate to intervene, especially as an intervener.

Both sides have cited me. I'm here for the EHRC, and it's their views I represent. Mine don't matter.

The paragraph JR read out is preceded by a paragraph that says case law says sex is immutable.

Today’s QC keeps going on about individuals’ dignity. I would love it if Ben Cooper’s reply mentioned that the HRA provisions on freedom of belief and speech were entirely aimed at safeguarding two core elements of individual dignity. Arguing that Maya’s belief is not worth protecting is a direct attack on her dignity, and an assault on her ‘psychological’ dignity (and the same for everyone else who believes the same thing.

One hour break everyone!

BOOM.

@TinselAngel

For trans people getting married though, where you are married according to your birth certificate for example, it can be very important, because most women don;t want to be legally regarded as a husband.

Yet when arguing around the spousal exit clause, trans widows marital status with regards to whether they're legally married to a male or a female, is apparently not important at all

Anyone should be allowed a divorce for any reason, or none in my opinion. But no-one should be allowed to veto their spouse's medical treatment, unless you were getting into the area of turning off a life-support machine or something like that.

@R0wantrees

You only need one in circumstances where you are expected to produce your birth certificate and for some tax purposes, so for many trans people it doesn't make much difference because they are not in situations where they need their birth certificate.

The passport is the primary UK identification document. It is based on the birth certificate and so acts as a proxy confirmation. UK passports should not have the sex marker changed unless the birth certificate has been changed.

You've already lost that one - trans people have been able to change their passport marker for years. You were fine.

Rooting for Maya

Absolutely @crossparsley, what about the dignity of WOMEN?? Don't we have dignity?

Expressing and insisting on a belief that recognising that sex is binary, immutable and matters is akin to holocaust denial/Naziism etc is really not conducive to a civilised, democratic society.