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

Good luck Maya.

From my experience of following a few High Court hearings in this area, when the gender critical side puts forward its arguments first this can be underwhelming since it's familiar stuff. It's when the other side responds, and attempts to express gender identity ideology arguments in clear terms that it's really eye-opening. Their arguments in court, without any social media amplification, usually come across as being gobsmackingly awful.

tweet

" ... with a different definition altogethers.

These are deep waters (case of Nicholson). Merit the closest possible consideration. Hence our skeleton goes broader than the specific issues in this case. "

YY Nauticant

tweets

"BC: practical context of appeal is relevant. The Court of Appeal determined in another context that people are liable to be denounced & dismissed from work if diverse from predominant view expressed on Twitter etc.

Janice Turner & JK Rowling both described the response to their tweets on this issue. See footnote 12 pg 7 of A's skeleton.

If MF is correct, people will have to choose between staying out of the debate altogetheras Tayler J held in first instance hearingor suffering penalties."

Very interesting about the intervention of the EHRC. As I recall, in the 'Asher cake case' (went to the Supreme Court - brief summary - you cannot be compelled to say (or write on a cake) something you do not believe, and this is different from the rights of individuals under the equality act not to be discriminated against - the NI equivalent of the EHRC was criticised for not being as helpful to the bakers as to the customer (extract from the decision below).

Mr Lee made arrangements with another cake provider for a similar cake which he was able to take with him to the party on 17 May. He complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (“the ECNI”) about the cancellation of his order. The ECNI have supported him in bringing this claim for direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion.
The Court of Appeal expressed some concern that the correspondence between the ECNI and the bakery may have created the impression that the ECNI was not interested in assisting members of the faith community when they found themselves
in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs (para 106). It is obviously necessary for a body such as the ECNI to offer its services to all people who may need them because of a protected characteristic and not to give the impression of favouring one such characteristic over others.

tweets

"Consequence is that any employer is not just that they can expect employees not to speak on this issue, but to compel them to express a positive gender identity belief.

It amounts to a mandate for compelled profession of a belief which many do not hold. This in a culture which already compels a particular belief."

tweet

"It is not disputed that trans people may be offended by expression of beliefs in the salience of sex. But this is not a competition to see who is most offended."

👏👏

Here's a twitter search that bundles together Maya tweets from a number of different sources:

twitter.com/search?q=SexMattersOrg%20OR%20istandwithmaya%20OR%20(maya%20forstater)&src=typed_query&f=live

It's worth a look because it also contains tweets from people who are new to this and not from either of the two polarised groups, GC and gender ideologues.

@AnneofScreamFables

Very interesting about the intervention of the EHRC. As I recall, in the 'Asher cake case' (went to the Supreme Court - brief summary - you cannot be compelled to say (or write on a cake) something you do not believe, and this is different from the rights of individuals under the equality act not to be discriminated against - the NI equivalent of the EHRC was criticised for not being as helpful to the bakers as to the customer (extract from the decision below).

Mr Lee made arrangements with another cake provider for a similar cake which he was able to take with him to the party on 17 May. He complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (“the ECNI”) about the cancellation of his order. The ECNI have supported him in bringing this claim for direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion.
The Court of Appeal expressed some concern that the correspondence between the ECNI and the bakery may have created the impression that the ECNI was not interested in assisting members of the faith community when they found themselves
in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs (para 106). It is obviously necessary for a body such as the ECNI to offer its services to all people who may need them because of a protected characteristic and not to give the impression of favouring one such characteristic over others.

Very interesting indeed.

tweet

"The role of the law is to ensure mutual respect from those of conflicting beliefs. It doesn't entail eradicating disagreement and contention. In a free society, citizens must tolerate even upsetting & unacceptable views, and they must do so in a workplace setting"

(I've got to disappear for a bit, @PearPickingPorky, so I hope you can access the feed linked to before from work?)

I do feel a bit sorry for Jane Russell, QC for the respondent. She said some ridiculous things in court first time around on behalf of her client, I wonder what she is going to come up with this time.

@AnneofScreamFables

Very interesting about the intervention of the EHRC. As I recall, in the 'Asher cake case' (went to the Supreme Court - brief summary - you cannot be compelled to say (or write on a cake) something you do not believe, and this is different from the rights of individuals under the equality act not to be discriminated against - the NI equivalent of the EHRC was criticised for not being as helpful to the bakers as to the customer (extract from the decision below).

Mr Lee made arrangements with another cake provider for a similar cake which he was able to take with him to the party on 17 May. He complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (“the ECNI”) about the cancellation of his order. The ECNI have supported him in bringing this claim for direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion.
The Court of Appeal expressed some concern that the correspondence between the ECNI and the bakery may have created the impression that the ECNI was not interested in assisting members of the faith community when they found themselves
in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs (para 106). It is obviously necessary for a body such as the ECNI to offer its services to all people who may need them because of a protected characteristic and not to give the impression of favouring one such characteristic over others.

This really is interesting. I recall the narrative around this case being 'baking business wouldn't make a cake because the customers were gay' but it was far more interesting when I read about what it actually was (that they were being asked to write something they did not believe).

Did you know there was a "gay cake" case in the US Supreme Court and the result corresponded to that in the UK, although Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed the decision that the bakers should be allowed to have freedom of belief/expression?

Did you know there was a "gay cake" case in the US Supreme Court and the result corresponded to that in the UK, although Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed the decision that the bakers should be allowed to have freedom of belief/expression?

I knew there must have been because I've seen reference to one in US media, but I didn't know the details.

It's this case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission Ereshkigalangcleg.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

Start point for considering A's belief. See paras 41+, seeking to distinguish between core beliefs and other aspects of belief. Key point is that, if it was going to reject anything she said about those beliefs, the tribunal needed to say so.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

The complete statement of her beliefs:

• sex is a biological reality, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity

Refers to original judgment.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

Judgment confirms that quoted passages reflect A's beliefs. There are two sexes, no spectrum of sex, no circs in which a person can change sex or become of neither sex. Tribunal accepted this at the time.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

She believes sex is a material reality. That's a core part of her belief. It's inherent that it's important to how people experience and interact with the world. These are not distinct or separable aspects of her belief. Because sex is real it effects how we interact with world

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

and because it effects how you experience the world, you know it's real. They're two sides of same coin.

She (A/MF) develops this. Her belief in importance of sex is rooted in material reality. Quotes MF's words.

"I believe that clearly recognising sex matters for education, safeguarding, medicine, design, statistics, combatting sex discrimination, single sex services, clearly talking about risks inherent in paediatric transitioning as brought out in Keira Bell v Tavistock."

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

These beliefs do not confer moral judgment on trans people or entail that they should not be treated with respect.

Some of the case law involves passing moral j'ment on those with protected characteristics. We are, in this case, nowhere near those margins of speech protections.

Despite the beard, #istandwithbencooper:

twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1386971717361442816

I'm back from the world's most pointless zoom meeting.

Just catching up.

'MF has been clear in all her writing & communications that sex is a biological category distinct from gender identity, which is self-expression. Saying someone is male is not saying "your gender identity is invalid." "I do not mind how you dress."'

Relevant to the case, I'd not seen the second photo in this tweet before:

twitter.com/WaltyOf/status/1386994941369491458

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

BC: A's beliefs don't interfere with trans rights because they were shared by some trans people. Kristina Harrison was a witness in first instance hearing.

--

KH self-describes as "a 54 year old transwoman, who was born male." This was not referred to by the tribunal. A trans person held the same belief as MF, yet held that it was an undemocratic belief unworthy of respect.

--

KH said "prudishness around gender as a word to refer to sex has caused problems, leading to confusion, conflation and obscuring what is at stake...Gender has come to refer not to our physical reality but to a metaphysical belief in an essential, fixed soul, which can be fluid."

--

"such that people can identify as male and female on different days...." KH self-describes as a socialist and shares belief with MF.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

KH "Gender is norms & roles which coercively stigmatising non-conformity. Gender is imposed on babies. Women & girls are disadvantages by these norms, and both sexes are stifled by them."

"Typically, when entrenched ideas about gender are formed, children identified as trans will refer to those as models for behaviour....Transwomen are not female, even if one changes physical appearance. An inverted penis is not a vagina. We can be qualified socio-legal women."

"We can be honorary women. We are unique in ourselves...Since transition I've been freer to express my personality without being punished for breaking gender rules, but I cannot claim to be female."

"My dignity, presentation, safety and rights are unaffected by using a gender neutral toilet rather than female toilet. It is possible to respect women's rights which respecting trans identity. "

--

BC: This is a powerful statement from a transwomen demonstrating that a TW can hold the same beliefs as MF. A coherent view from a TW that MF's beliefs do not involve passing moral judgment on trans identity, or conflicting with trans people's human rights.

This is a blistering opening from Ben Cooper QC.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

BC: Justice Julian Knowles in Miller v CoP: "Claimant Miller was not tweeting in a vacuum but participating in ongoing debate. Professor Kathleen Stock has impeccable academic pedigree. She writes that 'subjective concept of gender identity is inherent flawed as basis for law"

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

"I'm clear in all my work that trans people deserve dignity."

Knowles J: "Prof Stock describes the hostile climate facing gender critical academics. They are impediments to research. Student protests. Sussex University student union put out statements calling me transphobic."

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

"There are obstacles to achieving grant funding stemming from dogmatic belief among academics they transwomen are literally women and to say otherwise is automatically transphobic."

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

Jodie Ginsburg, then of Index on Censorship, is referred to. Knowles J: "there is an vigorous ongoing debate. People are labelled transphobic when they are clearly not. Legitimate, mainstream academic research is not tolerated by some."

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

A'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."

@JackieLavertysWeirdVoice

tweet

"The role of the law is to ensure mutual respect from those of conflicting beliefs. It doesn't entail eradicating disagreement and contention. In a free society, citizens must tolerate even upsetting & unacceptable views, and they must do so in a workplace setting"

(I've got to disappear for a bit, @PearPickingPorky, so I hope you can access the feed linked to before from work?)

I will get it there, Jackie, thank you very much for this