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

It is fascinating to see how they have to misrepresent the facts of the case before they can start mustering their arguments against it. Obviously they don't have a leg to stand on, or they wouldn't be making shit up. Of course the tactic worked when they wanted to smear and discredit JK Rowling, and the way she was treated did a good job of scaring less financially secure women into silence. Doubt it'll work on a judge though, we'll just have to see how their "case" stands up tomorrow.

Gosh this is starting to look like a Swiss cheese. I guess someone doesn't like the feedback here...

I think there was a bit too much "let's talk about the author as a Mumsnet user", rather than responding to the actual piece in question.

Cathartic, I know, but probably best to actually address the published article and any specific things in there that need to be called out, for the benefit of readers.

Thank you, Maya, for your courage. I wish you the best and hope you win.

How very interesting

I would like to manifest my beliefs around this, but will settle for just holding them this morning

This again - this fundamentally false claim that wanting to be able to “believe in” (I.e. accept) and live by reality is “anti-trans” or somehow to do with wanting to hurt people’s feelings and discriminate against them for the sake of it.

I have always known that sex exists in humans, is functionally binary, is important in some situations and cannot be literally changed. It never for a second occurred to me to even think about trans issues much at all let alone in a negative way, until some trans activists started demanding that I literally believe a man is a woman, that all you have to do make it so is to say so, and that I can’t have my own reality-based opinions on the matter on pain of being sacked. That behaviour is discriminatory and attacking - believing sex exists isn’t.

I don’t feel unable to cope with the fact that some people have different beliefs from me or feel attacked by it. Because some trans people and their allies do, they’re attempting to make society have only one belief, one that’s counter to a biological reality we all actually have to live by.

If we can’t stand up against that then we’re basically heading for a totalitarian, thought-policing, faith-based state. Not wanting that is nothing to do with hating trans people. Lots of trans people agree with what I say here themselves. Even the ones who are trying to push this idiocy, I don’t hate, I don’t mind them identifying as trans, I think they should have the same protections as anyone else.

But no other group is protected from having to listen to people talking about reality because it hurts their feelings.

I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies in this article.

Let's start at the beginning with the framing of knowledge that sex matters is, "anti-transgender".

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

1. The relevant philosophical belief was identified by the Claimant at §67 of her

reamended Particulars of Claim as “‘sex’ is a material reality which should not be ‘conflated with ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’ …[and]…sex matters.” The EJ expressed it thus: a. “That sex is immutable, whatever a person’s stated gender identity or gender expression” b. “Sex is biologically immutable”:

The Law

1. Section 10, EA 2010 provides that:

(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief. (3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-submissions-ehrc-final-amended.pdf

"Karon Monaghan QC's submissions on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Intervenor in the Appeal.

The EHRC submitted

1. Maya's philosophical belief is that sex is a material reality not to be conflated with gender identity and that sex matters.

1. Employment Tribunal Judge Tayler should have concluded that Maya's philosophical belief (that Sex Matters) falls under the protection of the Equality Act 2010

1. Employment Tribunal judge Tayler confused consideration of whether Maya's belief could be an Equality Act protected characteristic with how she might have expressed her beliefs. This was a mistake and the wrong approach.

1. EHRC stressed the importance of the following point.

It is not the State's role to monitor belief.

The Tribunal should not have embarked on an inquiry as to the value of Maya's belief. Value judgments (whether in beliefs about God or sex) are not the function of the ET.

5. EHRC submitted that the law treats sex as biological and binary and gender identity as social.

Many will think Maya's belief controversial and wrong. Nevertheless her belief is entitled to be protected"
twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1387148818270064647

Interesting commentary from Jane Clare Jones in response to Ash Shakar's misunderstandings (related to article):

JCJ: [Tayler - the EJ in the original tribunal hearing] made a judgement based on a manifestation of a belief that didn't happen, not on the belief.

Leya: But also manifesting the belief at work is protected so long as it is relevant. There is a difference, as we all know, between expressing your belief & saying things you know to be distressing to someone in the workplace just for the sake of it. This is really important as TRAs are now trying to pivot by saying well she can express what she wants outside of work but not in work, as though she should still have to self censor & be compelled to make out she believes things she doesn’t. Contact matters & I hope the judgement deals with this area clearly.

JCJ: Yes, it was important that distinction was made, it's less where it happens are much more whether it is in the context of some necessary conversation or expressing a belief or purposefully harassing someone. The TRAs want to claim the the belief itself constitutes harassment, that can't fly, beliefs can't be harassment in and of themselves. I thought the QC used a good example there.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1387141233097773060

Not clicking.
It's a dreadful "newspaper", peopled by the blinkered "my view is the only one that counts" wokerati.

David Bowie, as always, pretty much nailed it. Boys Keep Swinging.

It’s the Indy - not worth reading this ‘comic’. They don’t even pretend to hide their bias.

@R0wantrees

Molly Mulready is closely involved with Jolyon Maugham/Good Law Project's 'Trans Defence Fund' and was asked to set up its advisory group. This is primarily concerned with seeking to overturn the Judicial Review findings of Bell Vs Tavistock NHS.

The independent were happy to publish the letter signed by Claire Maugham, the Mulreadys & friends which claimed that trans women experience "significantly higher levels of violence" on International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Girls:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/olivia-colman-jameela-jamil-paloma-faith-trans-women-letter-b1761714.html

No person is entitled to knowingly cause pain to another employee
And now to find that every day, when they go to work, someone can reject their identity in the most fundamentally abusive terms. It is unthinkable. "

54.2e "Similarly, it will not constitute unlawful conduct under the EqA10 to express beliefs in a discussion about sex and gender in terms which are appropriate to the particular context (even assuming that it takes place in circumstances covered by that Act), even if expressing those beliefs involves describing people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in a way which they or others find distressing or offensive. Circumstances will vary infinitely and context is all."
hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

Maya Forstater
"The most critical places where the surpression of the ability to speak truthfully and use ordinary words to talk about sex is when people’s jobs involve the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people, and establishing and implementing policies for their protection."

What should be unthinkable is the prioritisation of adult male feelings/demands of identity validation over the welfare and Safeguarding of children and privacy, safety and dignity of women in workplaces.

For responses to the article:
twitter.com/Independent/status/1387026398271922182

The Critic
By Nathan Williams
27 April, 2021

'Sex deniers are the new flat earthers
Those who deny biological sex are dangerous and disingenuous; it’s time the rest of us stood up to them'

(extract)
"Places that once championed rationality and evidence like the Freethought Blog now explicitly ban those who dare present views on the existence of biological sex that they consider heretical.

When a biologist tweeted that stating biological facts is not bigotry, she was attacked by the very body you might expect to support her — The Royal Society of Biology — which labelled her comments as “transphobia”. Perhaps there was some detail of the science she got wrong — in which case you would expect this learned society to point out the error. But despite numerous attempts to find out what was incorrect about her statements, they have refused to answer. Even at its most censorious — the Catholic Church would tell blasphemers what their crime was. The modern witch-burners won’t even do that — they will rarely even discuss their claims with anyone who does not already share their beliefs. (continues)

...Many academics, particularly women, have faced threats and harassment merely for daring to talk about biological sex. There is no clearer demonstration that sex denialists are charlatans; their only weapons are creating fear and confusion. It’s time the rest of us stood up to them."
thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

No person is entitled to knowingly cause pain to another employee

But if it’s just having a different belief, it’s only causing pain if the other person can’t bear disagreement and that’s arguably their problem.

If your identity is that you’re black when you’re actually white, that you’re 6 foot tall when you’re actually 5 foot, or that you’re infallible when actually you messed up, people are allowed to disagree and believe otherwise, even if you don’t like it, even at work. If you are a Christian, people are allowed to say they don’t believe in god, even if it hurts your feelings, You are still protected against discrimination and bullying anyway, but not against people disagreeing with you - not actively to hurt you, but because they are allowed to have their own beliefs.

Reading that article was like reading some posts here on MN. Heard it all before.

Remember windy the meanings of words have changed. Some terms don’t quite mean what they used to.

It’s the Indy - not worth reading this ‘comic’. They don’t even pretend to hide their bias.

The Indepedent has published a number of propaganda pieces by transactivists which make false claims against women standing up for the protection of sex-based rights, Safeguarding and material reality.

What is pertinent in light of this article's claims and "overreach" is that one of the authors has recently published a 'legal guide':

‘A Practical Guide to Transgender Law’ by Robin Moira White & Nicola Newbegin
A comprehensive volume filling a notable gap in the legal library.

The book has introductory sections on the facts and language related to trans, and then substantial sections on the relevant parts of the Equality Act 2010 as related to transgender individuals, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Specialist sections then follow, dealing with Associations, Asylum, Criminal Justice, Data Protection, Education, Employment, Family, Healthcare, Media, Name and Gender Marker Change; Politics and Parliament, Prison, Services, Sport, Gender-critical views, Example Policies and Reform
www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/

Thanks R0

Let’s hope that book might be out of date pretty quickly? I mean, not having read it but read enough from one of the authors to already know it is likely to be a SW interpretation of EA2010 provisions anyway.

Hopefully after Ann Sinnott’s case, this will be cleared up and render the relevant sections useless.

Helleofabore I trust that there is some sort of editorial review at Law Brief Publishing. It seems entirely possible that clarification of the actual law in the course of Maya Forstater's appeal case would disprove some of the author's beliefs.

Critic Joshua Rozenberg
What is the case against Maya Forstater?
An employment judge may not believe sex is immutable — but will the appeal tribunal agree?

(extract)
"it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the tribunal regrets that the law has not moved further towards self-identification; and that its approach to this case has been coloured by a view of trans rights based upon acceptance of the proposition advanced by those on the other side of the debate from the claimant — which is that a person’s gender identity is (literally) their sex, regardless of biology, and that therefore to refer to a trans person by their biological sex in any circumstances is tantamount to harassment.

That is, of course, a belief that is as worthy of respect as the claimant’s, but it is emphatically not the law; and the tribunal’s role was to maintain the state’s neutrality in the debate between those with opposing beliefs, not to take sides.

Instead, although in (slightly) more moderate terms than the Twitter trolls who brand the claimant and those who share her beliefs “TERFs”, “bigots” and “transphobes”, the tribunal has engaged in precisely the “calumny” derided by JS Mill. It has aligned itself with one side in the debate. Based on that, has tarred any expression of the claimant’s views as offensive; and whether through a failure of understanding or imagination has failed to appreciate that, taken on their own terms, the claimant’s statements about biological sex are simply expressions of neutral fact.

Although this is not the relevant test, the claimant’s beliefs are actually on all fours with English law. It is all the more remarkable, then, that the tribunal should have found them to be not worthy of respect in a democratic society." (continues)
thecritic.co.uk/what-is-the-case-against-maya-forstater/

"Joshua Rozenberg QC (hon) is Britain's most experienced full-time legal commentator.
He is the only journalist to have been appointed as Queen's Counsel honoris causa. All other honorary silks since the late 19th century have been practitioners or legal academics.
He is an honorary Master of the Bench (bencher) of Gray's Inn and a non-executive board member of the Law Commission."
www.rozenberg.net/

R0wantrees, you are an indefatigable wonder.

I can't even muster the slightest desire to read anything printed in the Indie these days. It's just become the most fact-free online whifflepaper.