Maya Forstater is entitled to her views, but anti-transgender beliefs don’t belong in the workplace

[Trixie78]

I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies in this article. It's making my blood boil.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/maya-forstater-rowling-trans-b1838137.html

Inner sense of self... pass me a sick bag.

So I say ''Gender isn't real, you don't have to wear pink if you are a girl and wearing pink doesn't mean you are one'' and a persons inner sense of self is destroyed?

Gosh.

@JudithButlerNot

From the Metro article - "These beliefs [gender critical] are so extreme that they denounce a person’s inner sense of self, something they are in their very core." Expecting other people to affirm ones inner sense of self/ believing one can only be the true self if other people affirm is extraordinary.

And as usual completely blind that this logic works exactly the same the other way. When a trans woman insists there are no material differences between her experience of womanhood in a male body and my experience of life in a female body, she is denouncing my inner sense of self. She is denying my reality and silencing my voice because they only way she can claim we are the same is if I'm not allowed to speak as well.

Updating this with another thread post Maya Forstater's successful appeal.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4268563-Would-anyone-mind-if-I-ask-a-question-about-Robin-Moria-White

@NotBadConsidering

Oh look, Robin, the author of the article in the OP is here. Are you going to explain why you wrote so many wrong things Robin? Was it on purpose or just incompetent?

Naomi Cunningham QC review of “A practical guide to Transgender Law” (Law Brief Publishing, 2021) by Robin Moira White and Nicola Newbegin for Legal Feminist:

'A practical guide?'
(extract)
"The first point to note is that the book lacks a consistent sense of purpose, wandering between summarising the law, setting out statutory and non-statutory guidance and policy material, charting the development of the law and social attitudes in this area, and legal analysis. Perhaps as a result, its structure is choppy and repetitious: it’s not clear, for instance, why the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 get chapters to themselves as well as separate treatment in chapters on associations, education, employment and sport; or why “Prisons” (Chapter 15) is not treated as part of “Criminal Justice” (Chapter 6). The book is poorly proof-read, with minor errors sprinkled throughout the text and one instance where a section of nearly a page and a half appears in two different places.

The book’s defects of structure, clarity of purpose and editing might have been forgiven if the authors had been able to offer helpful insights on some of the undoubtedly tricky problems in this area. But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance. The chapter on data protection and confidentiality (Chapter 7) provides a competent summary of the law, as (for the most part) does Chapter 3 on the GRA; but the rest of the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent." (continues)

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

It really is interesting to read parts of this thread in conjunction with that book review…

Just received this Update on Stand With Maya!

This is the last push to sort the garden out, digging required.

Dear all,

I appreciate your support so far - it has been a long-haul for me, and for you. The next stage is as important as the first part.

My legal team have deadlines to get the disclosures done in October, the evidence bundle in November and the witness statements before the end of December.

I have written an article with an introduction and an update

The update is that following a case management hearing in August it is full steam ahead to the full hearing in March next year (a full three years after I lost my job!)

A set of 29 questions for the tribunal to consider have been agreed. These establish whether I was discriminated against, harassed and victimised because of my beliefs.

CGD have told the tribunal that if it is found that their policies created a disadvantage for people who share my belief, for they will be relying on the following as “legitimate aims” to defend their behaviour:

Providing a safe working environment for all staff, including trans persons, free from discrimination and harassment and ensuring their wellbeing and dignity at work.Promoting their values as an inclusive organisation.

They argue that these aims justify a policy that has a discriminatory effect on people with gender critical beliefs.

Winning this case is important because it will show that protection for gender critical beliefs is not just something we have in theory, but something that works in practice. This will make employers and service providers pay attention.

Thank you again for your support.

Maya

Many thanks R0 and Imnobody both very interesting posts and matters I shall go and look into. Good time to do a bit of mulching I think.

Fascinated by the way that creating a safe working environment for all apparently doesn't include those they are justifiably discriminating against.

It's shifting more and more openly to 'yes some women lose, and it's bad, but it's worth it to benefit some male people'.

Surely the legitimate aim defence won’t fly, as it depends on future events that may or may not happen…?