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

@Anovaneway

It's a protected belief that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It will upset some people, but it's protected.

Yes. But should you be able to say to someone at work: ‘homosexuality is a sin and I’m not going to recognise your married status. I don’t care if you have a certificate two people of the same sex cannot be properly married. I will continue to refer to you as single/ unmarried because that is what you are in the eyes of god’’?

Should there be any consequences to saying that?

The TRA arguments are so poor. It has been repeated over and over and over and over and over again that the right to believe something and share that belief does not give you a right to harrass people at work. Precisely where the line is is for another day.

Repeatedly referring to a trans woman as "he" is probably harrassment in the work place. Bringing up biological sex when discussing work-based policies regarding safeguarding women is not harrassment and should be allowed. This is so not difficult to grasp.

Whether it should be harrassment is another matter. I have no problem calling a biological male "she" if it helps the world get along better. But the again I am not a woman having my sex-based identity erased so my opinion is worthless.

@Anovaneway

Who in the name of God would actually say that? At work or anywhere else?

Could be as simple as refusing to use the tittle Mrs if that was what they wanted.

You think 'Mrs' is a tittle? A person's marriage status is an inconsequential dot? That's really disrespectful.

@Anovaneway

Who in the name of God would actually say that? At work or anywhere else?

Could be as simple as refusing to use the tittle Mrs if that was what they wanted.

That whole imaginary diatribe is nothing as simple as refusing to call someone Mrs. What's the matter with you?

@Anovaneway

It's a protected belief that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It will upset some people, but it's protected.

Yes. But should you be able to say to someone at work: ‘homosexuality is a sin and I’m not going to recognise your married status. I don’t care if you have a certificate two people of the same sex cannot be properly married. I will continue to refer to you as single/ unmarried because that is what you are in the eyes of god’’?

Should there be any consequences to saying that?

I'm a lesbian. I don't have an issue with someone saying that. They are entitled to express what they think. Better that they say it and I know who I'm working with than they keep it a secret or don't say it in front of me and I wonder why they're weird with me. Of course, I am also entitled to think what I like about their comments and, if appropriate, tell them those thoughts.

If that person followed me around day to day saying this it would constitute harassment and they could be disciplined for it. But I don't have the right to live a life free of offence. I don't have the right to require the world to lose freedom of speech to preserve my fragile ego.

@Anovaneway

Who in the name of God would actually say that? At work or anywhere else?

Could be as simple as refusing to use the tittle Mrs if that was what they wanted.

Maya Forstater didn't do that though, so how is it relevant?

@CardinalLolzy

Perhaps we should wait for the judgement and start a new thread then, as this one is filling up and still being posted on by people who can't understand what this is about yet don't want to read the literature telling them what this is about.

That's indeed another reason to post these hyperbolic nonsense situations, don't understand the issue, don't want to understand the issue so just deflect and derail.

@Pota2

There seems to be an inability these days to separate holding beliefs and how you treat others. It is possible to not believe that trans women are women (and I’d wager that about 90% of the TRA mob secretly don’t believe what they are spouting) and still treat trans people with dignity and respect. Same as it is possible to believe that non-believers will go to hell but still treat people with respect, regardless of their beliefs. People need to understand that there will always be a diversity of beliefs and that this is not a bad thing. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they hate you or want you dead or want to deny your existence. You can’t force people to change their minds. The best you will get is people pretending to think a certain way due to fear.

I think you're right and I think the same about people who claim to believe in god. I'd guess around 10% do and that half of the rest are lying to themselves and the other half of the rest of the world.

And if people have a right not to be offended then all religious people need to pretend to be atheists, because knowledge of their belief means I am offended that they think I'm going to hell.

That's a breath of fresh air, Shedbuilder.
I'm starting to feel I'm drowning in this "But you could say X and what you'd really mean is Y and that would hurt people's feelings" shite.
Stop making shit up, Anovaneway. It doesn't advance your cause one whit.

@Anovaneway

MF wasn't saying stuff at work.

I didn’t say she was. I was asking if someone should be able to say that as an expression of their protected belief.

And the answer is no. Because that would be seen as harassment. That is entirely different from holding and expressing lawful and true beliefs without targeting an individual. Are you religious? Would it be okay for me to say that you going to church and believing in God offended me to the extent that I felt that you were denying my humanity.

I work with some people who think homosexuality is a sin. I know this because they mentioned it at work, when it was relevant. I have no idea whether that was legally protected speech, but I'm really glad they were allowed to express it, when necessary. I would not support them randomly going up to gay colleagues or me (I'm bisexual) to say it for no reason. There is a huge difference.

Either way, that it a false equivalence because MF did NOT say anything at work!

You’re allowed to use what title you like, as long as it’s not prohibited by law or misleading (and even then I don’t think there’s much that can be done if someone insists on it). I can call myself Mrs without being married and someone married can call themselves Miss. I am an academic and have a PhD so am entitled to use the title Dr. Outside work, I never do but you wouldn’t believe the number of people who claim that a PhD isn’t a ‘real’ doctor and that they refuse to use the title when addressing an academic. Do you think I cry to their employers about it?

I suppose some people deftly assume a doctor is only a medical doctor?

Well done to Maya for her fortitude, courage and clear sightedness. I am hopeful for a positive judgment.

Thank you to everyone for this thread- & the live tweeting. I've been busy working and so It's taken me a while to catch up on the details, but wow. Really wow.The closing argument from BC was a stonker and I'm also quite tempted to award JC a wee star for services to GC women. What a job she had.

Can I also mention Chaz' brilliant major general lyrics in dispatches?

@Anovaneway

There are some men who believe (erroneously) that they have the 'legal' right to participate in women's sport, use female single sex changing rooms, be referred to as she/her etc

Yes, and there are some trans women who believe (correctly) that they have the 'legal' right to participate in women's sport, use female single sex changing rooms, be referred to as she/her etc

No - TW are men. They have no right to sex-segregated facilities, though they will bluster and insist that gender is "protected"

It isn't. SEX is a protected characteristic - and sex and gender are two different things.

They do NT have the right to participate in women's sports, though some (weak, "woke") organisations are changing rules to suit them, and their preferred pronouns are just that - preferred. Most people will happily use them as a courtesy. I will happily use them as a courtesy. I won't happily have a TW sharing my or my DD's changing room though.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I suppose some people deftly assume a doctor is only a medical doctor?

Some people do think that. It’s incorrect but I fully accept that they think it. I don’t use it but I can if I want to. The point is that there is relatively little I can do to force someone to call me something, unless I can show it’s harassment based on a protected characteristic.

You’re allowed to use what title you like, as long as it’s not prohibited by law or misleading
You are, absolutely. But I don't think you can compel anyone else to use it?

There are whole swathes of women who are married but don't use the title Mrs, nor adopt their husband's name on marriage, as is their right. What relevance is that to their work? Who cares? What business is it of their colleagues?

I've never worked anywhere where colleagues have obsessed over someone's marital status, nor indeed their sexuality.

@Helleofabore

How is one to differentiate men from men with the correct piece of paper?

A conundrum that never seems to be answered.

Nobody lies about these things, Helle

Nicely said BlueLipstick

For anyone interested, the skeleton argument for CGD is here:

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/eat-skeleton-final.pdf

I do find it very surprising the amount of times the Equal Treatment Bench Book is referred to. It is not the law so it should not carry much weight.

I didn’t say she was. I was asking if someone should be able to say that as an expression of their protected belief.

This was all explained in the hearing.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

Finally, JR ended with the submission that if this appeal succeeds T people can be harassed at work with impunity.

That's not right. If appeal succeeds, belief will be protected and employers won't be permitted to discriminate on basis of it. That doesn't mean that anyone will be allowed to behave in the workplace in a manner that amounts to harassment.

There's a difference between discussing your beliefs respectfully and harassing or abusing someone because of them.

@GreyhoundG1rl

You’re allowed to use what title you like, as long as it’s not prohibited by law or misleading You are, absolutely. But I don't think you can compel anyone else to use it?

Exactly. Totally agree.

And for those who claim that misgendering is akin to murder and an affront to privacy and dignity etc, maybe they should consider that women are asked to declare their marital status every time we step outside the front door (or make a phone call). So don’t talk to us about privacy, mate (addressed to TRAs, not you!). I won’t even mention the many ‘jokes’ men make about marital status either.

Good luck Maya! Fingers crossed for the judgement.

@NecessaryScene1

She is creating, in my submission, a sort of sex superiority, which creates two classes of women: real and fake women. That is beyond the pale. That is denying a group of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

No, it's dividing these "women" into female and male "women". Which is reality. And the law.

Does that mean a new word has to be created to denote adult human females? Why is the word which formerly denoted adult human females being used to refer to others?