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

Particularly because a few people are under the impression, from the article, that Maya Fostarter has misgendered and harassed a trans work colleague. The article has led to that ambiguity.

It seemed to me that the article was very very carefully constructed to give this misleading impression while not containing any individual sentences which were lies.

What a way to use your legal training. If the authors are capable of shame they should be feeling it.

My new favourite thing is to ask cis/het couples "which one is the woman?

I bet he doesn’t. He imagines doing this and in his imagination the whole pub stands up and applauds his brave witty transgressiveness.

In reality he’d just get a funny look and the couple would start talking to someone else.

What a way to use your legal training. If the authors are capable of shame they should be feeling it.

At least when they do it in court they've got someone on the other side to counter it. Who's going to get the equivalent amount of space in the Independent?

If no-one, then this sort of adversarial approach is not acceptable. Some more objective should be writing these pieces.

My new favourite thing is to ask cis/het couples "which one is the woman?

Wait a mo... if Gregor can't tell which one (if, indeed, either) is 'the woman', how does Gregor possibly know whether the couple is het, and whether both or either are 'Cis'?

In a way it's of course reassuring that the only way the writers could think of to make out "Forstater bad! Forstater must lose!!" was to misrepresent not only Maya herself and the facts about what happened but also even the issues at the hearing. It's frustrating to see such mendacious twaddle in print, but it's not as if it's a real newspaper.

White and Mullready,
In our view the right position, and one which, we believe, reflects the true legal position, and the moral values of this country, is one in which Forstater and those who hold views like hers, should be perfectly entitled to hold them – just not to bring them into the workplace and inflict them on their colleagues.

It may come as a shock (and no doubt disappointment) for the authors to discover that there is no UK law requiring women not to bring their knowledge of Safeguarding, the material reality and relevance of sex or the importance of women's rights legislation into the workplace.

As to the morals which might demand women's silent compliance and denial of Safeguarding principles at work on threat of firing, they may be the authors' but they are not (thankfully) those of the majority in UK in 2020.

those who hold views like hers, should be perfectly entitled to hold them – just not to bring them into the workplace and inflict them on their colleagues.

More or less Maya's legal team's argument too, in a nutshell. If those who believe in sex based spaces had not had alternative views inflicted on them in the workplace regardless of their own beliefs or consent, there would be no problem. It's confusing that the writers don't seem to feel their preferred values should be reciprocal.

More or less Maya's legal team's argument too, in a nutshell. If those who believe in sex based spaces had not had alternative views

There are times when one's views and the materialisation of beliefs are relevant to one's work activities/duties and should be expressed within the workplace. As R0 reminds us:

no UK law [requires] women not to bring their knowledge of Safeguarding, the material reality and relevance of sex or the importance of women's rights legislation into the workplace.

Some of the current breaches of human rights in England involve staff who are (mistakenly) under the belief or have been told that they must ignore all of these. Eg, prison staff come to mind.

Wait a mo... if Gregor can't tell which one (if, indeed, either) is 'the woman', how does Gregor possibly know whether the couple is het, and whether both or either are 'Cis'?

Good question!

just not to bring them into the workplace and inflict them on their colleagues.

I wouldn't be able to do my job if I didn't bring these views into the workplace. Facts are important.

This sort of thing really highlights to me, the hypocrisy and tyranny of the current model of workplace "inclusion and diversity".

You can and should "bring your whole self to work", it goes, as long as your whole self happens to subscribe to a particular set of modern, western, woke beliefs. If it doesn't then STFU or you'll get the sack.

What happened to just bringing your work self to work, getting the job done, and leaving the other crap at home. 🤔

Talking about the different sexes of human beings is not a "belief". It's immutable fact.
The fact that some people want to brainwash us into thinking that this most important biological aspect of our species is a "belief" is so disturbing... that it beggars belief. See correct use of the word.

I work with political campaigners
that does not mean I have to be nice about Tories or Momentum

I work with Christians
that does not mean I have to believe in a random 2000 year old book

I work with trans people
that does not mean I have to pretend that their clothes reflect their biology

No workplace needs their workers whole selves.

Would we be forced to show the same enthusiasm for Doreen in Account's new knitting patterns, or admire Ben's in Procurement's latest crop of carrots, as seems to be expected for Dave deciding he likes to be Davina at weekends?
Who could seriously be expected to give a shit about any of it, much less an enforced shit, as it were?
I find it offensive that if I object to knowing more about my colleagues that I feel comfortable with I'm labelled a bigot.
I just don't fucking care.

No I don't care either. I really really don't need to know this fucking stuff.

I don’t want to take my whole self into the office and I doubt if my colleagues would like it either.

Not do I need to see their complete selves, nor know about their sexual preferences, or their labels or other habits. It’s just not relevant.

Some employers and colleagues have been distinctly less than sympathetic to enforced WFH causing parents, especially mothers, to inadvertently "bring more of their whole selves to work" than usual. The part that is 'mummy or daddy' is often expected not to come to work.

those who hold views like hers, should be perfectly entitled to hold them – just not to bring them into the workplace and inflict them on their colleagues.

Two way street though isn't it. And if your belief system overrides my lack of consent to mixed spaces, then yes, of course me saying why it's not on is acceptable.

The part that is 'mummy or daddy' is often expected not to come to work.

Ha, you're right, work was never interested in my single parent child care issues. That was like a dirty secret I had to keep to myself.

Two way street though isn't it. And if your belief system overrides my lack of consent to mixed spaces, then yes, of course me saying why it's not on is acceptable.

I enjoyed Ben Cooper's closing argument:

'' C doesn't deny people's rights under the GRA. She is happy to recognise them; endorses the principle that T people should not be discriminated against or harassed. But she doesn't accept that they must be treated in every situation the same as biological women.

That's on all fours with the current state of the law. And it's so even if it upsets people

It doesn't need to be on all fours with the law to be protected. It's a protected belief that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It will upset some people, but it's protected.

If it were the test, people on the other side of the argument who say trans people should be allowed to access all single sex spaces would fall foul of it ''

This bring your whole self to work is such a load of crap, as others have said, I go to work to work, do the job required and for which I am rewarded financially and then go home. Agree with toffee Nor do I need to see their complete selves, nor know about their sexual preferences, or their labels or other habits. It’s just not relevant, frankly I'm not bloody interested.

In the day it was none of my colleagues business which ones of us
went to Greenham Common
boycotted South African produce
supported Greenpeace

It should be none of an employers business the comments that a person makes
that DO NOT IMPACT on their work

Phil Bunce who Maya tweeted about, reasonably questioning why he was on a top 100 women list was excluded from the list the following year for making derogatory remarks about women. The two trans people featuring in Mayas case are both on the receiving end of sanctions for their inability to be civil to women and yet Maya has always been civil.

Double standards at play here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3405274-Pips-Bunce-dropped-from-FT-list

Double standards at play here.

Is it at all possible that people who apply those double standards recognise there is a sex class that can be oppressed with the expectation of kindness even when it harms that same individual and sex class?