Maya media coverage

[Womansisterdaughtermother]

hwww.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8343180-a77f-11eb-9b76-9500a3917e5f?shareToken=20f79ddfd3d8df44fa9bd65f8ae616f3ttps://

That link isn't working.

Corrected link:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8343180-a77f-11eb-9b76-9500a3917e5f?shareToken=20f79ddfd3d8df44fa9bd65f8ae616f3

That article isn't great - it isn't clear about what exactly her views are. It refers to her saying men can't transition to women. Of course, they can transition. Her point is that biologically that doesn't change your sex. The usage of "transition" in this discussion is so wide it becomes unclear.

Thanks for the link.
They are probably limited in what they can say, pending the outcome.
The headline is good though.

Thanks OP will read.

Current thread discussing Independent opinion piece by Robin White and Molly Mulready,
'Maya Forstater is entitled to her views, but anti-transgender beliefs don’t belong in the workplace'
archive.li/IDv8x#selection-573.0-573.65
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

Critic By Joshua Rozenberg
27 April, 2021
'What is the case against Maya Forstater?
An employment judge may not believe sex is immutable — but will the appeal tribunal agree?'
(extract)
"Is a belief that sex is different from gender so extreme that it’s unworthy of respect in a democratic society?

That’s the opening question Ben Cooper QC and Anya Palmer ask the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a devastating skeleton argument prepared for a two-day hearing that started this morning. (continues)

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.

The claimant’s statements about biological sex are simply expressions of neutral fact

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/