Can I ask a question about maya Forstater, please?

[rabbitwoman]

I was chatting to a pal about this. She said she'd been reading up about the case, but thought the things maya had said on twitter were unhelpful and childish - calling a trans woman a bloke in a dress being one. She said her tweets were quoted in an article in the independent, or the guardian or something but I can't find it and I can't find any evidence of the tweets maya made that led up to her sacking having anything like this in them.

I did not really follow the case at the time but recently, I have listened to her interviews with Zuby and Benjamin Boyce and she sounds really professional, intelligent and she does not sound like she would throw about childish insults. But my friend is adament, and adament that her behaviour was foolish, not well thought out and that possibly her behaviour led to the judgement?

I am assuming that the stuff written about her for mass consumption was scewed somewhat to serve a certain agenda (much like jkr was misrepresented) ? Was she grossly misrepresented in the press (and was it deliberate) - or does my pal have a point?

mforstater.medium.com/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489

www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-2200909-2019

Have you read the judgement. IIRC some of the tweets are reproduced in there.

Thanks for this! In deed I have read it. I showed it to my pal. She said she still thought maya's attitude had not helped the situation and was rude.

She said she'd read about it in the independent, or guardian, and the tweets were quoted - but I can't find that article.

Ask your friend for the article then?

And maybe ask her, does she think people should lose their jobs for ‘being rude’ outside of the workplace?

It wasn't a transwoman - it was Philip/Pippa Bunce, and even India Willoughby (who is a transwoman) thinks that it was ridiculous that Bunce has been hailed as a top businesswoman when Bunce does not even identify as a woman.

expressdigest.com/credit-suisse-director-slammed-for-appearing-top-women-list/

This is probably the article your friend is referring to - see thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

Although most papers having reported on the case went out of their way to have an article from a trans identified person about how hurtful it all was.

All MF has said is that you cant change sex. She has not personally insulted anyone.

However her stating that you cant change sex led to her losing her job.

The Judge at the employment tribunal hearing said it was right that she was sacked because having the view (that you cant change sex) was 'not worthy of respect in democratic society'! ie saying you cant state the biological truth.

As a result of this there is a review of the Judge's decision / comments as if left unchallenged could be said to set the precedent that nobody is entitled to say that you cant change sex.

(This is a very simplified version of everything that has happened. But none of it has anything to do with MF being personally insulting to anyone. Though I am sure PInk News etc., have probably reported or inferred that.)

We really are heading into cloud cuckoo land if stating an actual fact is made a crime.

She also accidentally misgendered Gregor Murray. You may want to have a look at this article about Gregor:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-48295000.amp

I should be clear she did not work with Gregor - this is purely about non-work related things she posted on social media.

The “misgendering” of Gregor Murray was also after she lost her job and really has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the link to the judgement.

The tweets about pip bunce are on page 7 - it seems to be different to what my pal thinks she's read elsewhere - maybe subtly so, but I think it's an important subtle difference. It seems maya was - bluntly - stating facts about bunce's cross dressing, and Bunce is not a trans woman.

So maya never called any trans woman a 'bloke in a dress'? And yet there was a mainstream article that says she did?

Maya is constantly misquoted or the quotes are taken out of context to make it seem like they're about something they're not.

Maya never called a trans woman a bloke in a dress. I think that this is referring to what she said about Philip Bunce, who is not a transwoman, and doesn't identify as a woman. He is a part time cross dresser who goes to work on some days dressed as a woman, on those days calling himself Pippa. He received an award for women in business.

Maya wrote (to my knowledge - this was in reply to someone else): "Pips Bunce is a man in heels. This is true. He said he enjoyed wearing women's clothes and started bringing his hobby to work. I think it's obscene that he was given a women in business award because he wears a dress."

This thread may be useful:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1209914779973931010.html

I think what I am really concerned about is that not many people will take the time to read the full judgment, they would rather read a pithy article or opinion piece from a newspaper that has not reported it accurately..... Maybe not even purposefully, just for brevity.

I was not even aware that the actual facts of her case, and why she lost her job, has not even come to court yet!!

[quote AnotherLass]Maya is constantly misquoted or the quotes are taken out of context to make it seem like they're about something they're not.

Maya never called a trans woman a bloke in a dress. I think that this is referring to what she said about Philip Bunce, who is not a transwoman, and doesn't identify as a woman. He is a part time cross dresser who goes to work on some days dressed as a woman, on those days calling himself Pippa. He received an award for women in business.

Maya wrote (to my knowledge - this was in reply to someone else): "Pips Bunce is a man in heels. This is true. He said he enjoyed wearing women's clothes and started bringing his hobby to work. I think it's obscene that he was given a women in business award because he wears a dress."

This thread may be useful:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1209914779973931010.html[/quote]
Sheesh. So from this reading this really quickly, it does seem that even in the actual judgment, maya's tweets were taken out of context. I really hope this is cleared up in the appeal. Or we are doomed....

So much has been taken out of context ! By my employer, by the judge, by people on social media and by bits of the media....rinse and repeat.

I don't delete tweets (apart from very rarely for mistakes, bad links etc..) so you can read the Pips Bunce conversation which starts here

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1044495561481703424?s=19

The Independent article is not by a journalist

The Independent article is not by a journalist

Oh, right, that article. I hadn't registered what we were talking about. Masterful understatement there.

No, the author of that is an extremely personally-motivated transactivist who is involved in other legal cases on the opposing side.

They are far from a neutral reporter.

So it would be utterly unfair to weight that piece any more than a pro-Maya piece. Or, Maya herself. (Points up)

Hey, Maya!

I don't mind the Independent posting a campaigner's piece on the case. I'm all in favour of their views getting visibility.

What I mind is they have yet to post something from a campaigner on our side. It's unbalanced.

This is the stuff of big nightmares!

Orwellian and worst. So sorry the relentless lies keep resurfacing.

Maya I am thankful for what you are doing and i wish I could support you more than just being on your side and donating to your crowdfunding what little I can.

Keep the light shining on the truth.

💐💐💐💐

surely the independent should have made it clear that the writer of that piece was writing from an ideological position?

It's a blooming travesty, frankly. I am amazed at the things that judge said - although, having been through a tribunal myself I think that judges don't always listen properly and don't always read all the pertinent stuff......?

Chuffed you have replied to my thread, maya! Like I said, hearing you talk about this and go through presents a very different picture to quickly doing a Google and reading whatever articles come up.....

Thanks for raising these questions, OP. It shows how strongly some people obey the dogma that’s been forced on us the past few years.

Woman says humans can’t change sex. Woman is therefore a bad person. Even though her statement is true? Yes, because it’s the wrong truth. It’s a bad truth and only bad people say it, even though everyone knows it’s true.

It’s good to expose these attitudes to the sunlight.

The Independent article is not by a journalist

Beautifully understated!

surely the Independent should have made it clear that the writer of that piece was writing from an ideological position?

Sadly, the Independent is like the Guardian these days: one-time great newspapers that now slavishly follow the new party line. I would no longer believe anything I read in either of them without verifying it from other sources.

a very different picture to quickly doing a Google and reading whatever articles come up.....

The problem is that what's happening is so ludicrous that the false stories are easier to sustain.

It would make more sense that Maya had been fired for bad behaviour to trans people at work. That's something people could intuitively believe.

The real story seems much more unlikely.

Or at least, unlikely to those who aren't already aware of how bad it's got.

So it goes "What's this JKR tweet about someone being fired for saying 'sex is real'??". "No, what actually happened was...". "Oh, right." (Peace of mind restored).

There was actually a very good overview of the whole thing in the telegraph a few days ago, for the uninitiated.

It detailed events and facts clearly and a few bits I hadn't been aware of eg the Murray thing.

I'll try to find it, may be paywalled though.,

Sorry, didn't see maya's post, keep fighting the good fight! (Awesome response to WH too!)

although, having been through a tribunal myself I think that judges don't always listen properly and don't always read all the pertinent stuff

But it seemed like the judge was paying attention. If you can find the live tweet coverage of the case, there were a lot of sensible questions being asked.

The judgment seemed to come out of nowhere. Latching onto tiny details, making stuff up about Maya's views, and ignoring a lot of the stuff from court.

One thing that struck me in the "not paying attention" stakes was that Kristina Harrison's testimony didn't get a single mention in the judgment, apart from noting that they'd been called.

(Kristina is a transwoman who testified for Maya. Great talk at WPUK here: