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

BC introduces interveners on behalf of the appellant's case
@IndexCensorship
&
@EHRC

Maya tweeted herself that ehrc were not intervening on her behalf but were setting out the law. But this reads more postively that they are intervening for maya. Either way it's a good sign. If late. And yes it would have been difficult for them to come out and make a statement earlier if their view is that maya's belief is similar to the way the concepts work in the EA because that had been ruled unworthy of respect.

I think the difference between the American gay cake and the UK one, is that the American one actually was a wedding cake, whereas the UK one was a political slogan in cake form. But it's interesting the us courts came down on the side of religious freedom even so.

I am a bit unnerved by the questions that the judge is asking.

He or she interjected that her belief has to be in context.
And just now "could it mean that [maya] might have been more prolific in using what she determines to be the correct pronoun?"
Sounds like the judge is going the same route as before - mixing belief with all the possible contexts & ways that the belief could be expressed.

I was hoping that for this first stage the court would just consider the beliefs themselves, in general terms, and ask are they worthy of protection in general? Then they would look at the specific context of who said what, where & to whom.

It’s a male judge.
I actually think it’s quite good if the judge makes an effort to show that he understands the case from both perspectives. It makes it less likely that the judgment can be appealed. If the judge appeared utterly taken in by Maya’s argument and dismissive of the other side, it would be easier to accuse him of being biased.

Sorry as I wrote that I remembered that there are three judges but two of them are lay members and only one is judicially trained. So apologies if the interjections came from one of the others - at least one of whom is female I think.

Very interesting about the intervention of the EHRC.

Very interesting EHRC video in that Twitter search stream - that explicitly mentions you can not be discriminated against for not having a belief.

Yes, absence of a particular belief is - in theory - to be as equally protected as having the belief.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

Very interesting about the intervention of the EHRC.

Very interesting EHRC video in that Twitter search stream - that explicitly mentions you can not be discriminated against for not having a belief.

I wonder if Maya would have been better doing the "I don't believe in Gender Identity" line then? Rather than "I believe in biological sex".

Talking on Politics Live now about Maya. Last 5 minutes of programme. Green Party man saying what you would expect, Melanie Phillips was amazing (obviously understood what the case is about), Labour woman didn't answer the question and looked panic stricken, the Conservative defended freedom of speech in a slightly weasly manner. Quite funny really. Fair play to Melanie Phillips who I disagree with about a lot of things, but she was the only one who obviously knew what the case is really about.

I wonder if Maya would have been better doing the "I don't believe in Gender Identity" line then? Rather than "I believe in biological sex".

That's interesting.

The live tweeting is extremely clear, which must be so difficult to do.

I’m glad Maya is taking the case on from the POV is sex being immutable and a belief worthy of respect. If her appeal succeeds, we have a clear line in the sand and those who share her view will have legal precedent they can point to. Go Maya!

I just caught Politics Live and the tension, awkwardness and squirming whenever the gender issue comes up is so painful to watch.

But well done Melanie Phillips for being brave enough to answer the question

It's amazing isn't it. Like saying Voldamort in Harry Potter. Like I said if it wasn't so serious it would be funny. How are people so terrified of speaking the truth. How spineless, frightened are they. Such an unhealthy attitude. It's really reduced my respect of politicians.

@Datun

I wonder if Maya would have been better doing the "I don't believe in Gender Identity" line then? Rather than "I believe in biological sex".

That's interesting.

The EHRC has only joined in for this part of the proceedings. This change in interest might or might not reflect a change in leadership that has happened within the last year.

I wonder if Maya would have been better doing the "I don't believe in Gender Identity" line then? Rather than "I believe in biological sex".

Yes, that is an interesting thought! Sure her lawyers will have considered this angle?

I've read all the live tweeting now, and Ben Cooper QC as covered the absence of belief angle in his opening statement, as well as arguing that MF's belief is protected under Articles 9, 10 and ?17.

I think.

It's amusing to see that on twitter trans activists wanting to have their say on this case, and get visibility, are having to put #istandwithmaya in their tweets.

I'd make a terrible lawyer.

@Mollyollydolly

Talking on Politics Live now about Maya. Last 5 minutes of programme. Green Party man saying what you would expect, Melanie Phillips was amazing (obviously understood what the case is about), Labour woman didn't answer the question and looked panic stricken, the Conservative defended freedom of speech in a slightly weasly manner. Quite funny really. Fair play to Melanie Phillips who I disagree with about a lot of things, but she was the only one who obviously knew what the case is really about.

Of course Melanie P is married to Joshua Rozenberg, so they may have discussed it at home!

Melanie P is married to Joshua Rozenberg, so they may have discussed it at home!

Rozenberg's summary of the skeleton is very clear.

rozenberg.substack.com/p/can-you-believe-sex-is-immutable?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium

@nauticant

It's amusing to see that on twitter trans activists wanting to have their say on this case, and get visibility, are having to put #istandwithmaya in their tweets.

And a little rich in unintended consequences when there are people on it who claim to be using it as an index to an auto-blocker so will be blocking people who are opposed to the argument with which they're in sympathy.

@ArabellaScott

I wonder if Maya would have been better doing the "I don't believe in Gender Identity" line then? Rather than "I believe in biological sex".

Yes, that is an interesting thought! Sure her lawyers will have considered this angle?

Neither works - trans people also believe in biological sex, and saying gender identity doesn't exist can't be taken seriously.

"I don't want to respect trans people's identities" would probably be most accurate approach.

If she loses, compelled speech will be written into law. The law won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. She mustn’t lose.