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?

I have just (in the last few minutes) been speaking to Ms Forstster on Twitter and she is asserting that she would always respect a workplace pronoun policy...
Did you really co-author an article on the topic without being aware that Maya has consistently stated this?

To hear Maya's own words, from her own mouth that are not taken out of context I would recommend watching...

And

I thoroughly enjoyed both and listened whilst I was doing the ironing.

Your friend would do well to listen to the person who is the subject of the case OP and not read the various lies spin provided by the newspapers and individuals who are keen to share their own perspective or their 'own facts', which may or may not tally with the law and what actually happened.

I read the Telegraph article last weekend and would like to congratulate Maya on her down to earth straight forward views regarding sex and gender.
It is a great pity that so indoctrinated are the younger generation by the current bullshit that some truly believe that a fully transitioned male to female has actually changed sex. My niece being one of them despite an A level in biology, although that may be just a poor reflection of the ability of her biology teacher. I am really looking forward to watching the resulting fireworks display when she makes this observation to her other aunt who has a PhD in molecular biology and genetics.

I am a member of no campaigning trans organisation and have appeared bringing: e.g., (Taylor)

January 2, 2021
Maya Forstater article:
'Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover: A landmark case, or losing sight of the landmarks of reality?'
(extract)
"The case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover has been trumpeted as a “landmark” employment tribunal decision recognising that people who identify as non-binary or gender-fluid can be covered by the Equality Act protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”. (continues)

The tribunal was scathing about Jaguar Land Rover’s handling of the situation, saying:

It is fair to say that the Human Resources Team has not functioned properly or provided accurate and professional advice in this case.

Certainly Jaguar fumbled the toilets question by being unwilling to say “no” to a male employee with a strong desire to use the ladies.

But the tribunal itself tried to close off the practical solution of allowing Taylor to use the disabled toilet where other gender-neutral options were not yet available. Its conclusion does not appear to have any basis in law.

And its suggestions do not engage with the need for clear, fair rules in large organisations. Should all comments related to colleague’s clothing be strictly forbidden? Should anyone be allowed to use any toilet they choose, regardless of their sex?

"... Or does it believe that Jaguar Land Rover should apply special rules to anyone covered by Section 7 of the Equality Act? If so, how are colleagues supposed to know what these special rules are, and who they apply to?

Answering these dilemmas are serious questions for companies. Jaguar Land Rover should be cautious about letting Stonewall in if it wants to maintain a grasp on reality, and on the rights of all its staff."
a-question-of-consent.net/2021/01/02/taylor-v-jaguar-landrover-a-landmark-case-or-losing-sight-of-the-landmarks-of-reality/

OP, I've been following the gender wars since about 2008/9, and in all that time I've never seen ANY formulation of a gender critical viewpoint that is deemed acceptable by gender ideologues or their supporters, no matter how moderately or cautiously it is expressed.

There is no possibility of us ever being able to magically alight on the right language which is kind and sensitive enough, and then being able to have the debate. This is because it is not the language which the sex denialists reject. It is the existence of an alternative viewpoint itself. That is why we have ended up in the courts on this.

It's like when women are blamed for their own domestic abuse: 'she brought it on herself for being a bitch'. The truth is that there is no behaviour or language that can protect you in the face of a dynamic of misogynistic attack, whether that's being beaten up by your partner, or getting a Twitter pile-on for having the temerity to defend your existing sex-based rights.

Out of interest, what are the origins of the Equal Treatment bench Book?

As in authors / organisations behind it?

I also see that a new edition was published in February 2021 - were there any amendments

@Floisme

I have just (in the last few minutes) been speaking to Ms Forstster on Twitter and she is asserting that she would always respect a workplace pronoun policy... Did you really co-author an article on the topic without being aware that Maya has consistently stated this?

I can't even count the number of times where people have had to point out that Maya has always maintained this.

And always in response to someone either under, or giving, the impression that she is deliberately misgendering and bullying a transwoman at work.

Robin wrote:

"Take a moment to imagine being a trans person and having to go to work every day with someone who insists on using your previous name and pronouns. It often takes a trans person many years to overcome the dread and fear of being rejected by family and friends, mocked in the street and discriminated against at work. And now to find that every day, when they go to work, someone can reject their identity in the most fundamentally abusive terms."

Which resulted in a number of commenters under the article being left with the impression that this is indeed what Maya Forstater has done.

@CorvusPurpureus

She's very clear on Twitter.

As she has been, consistently.

Personally I would avoid pronoun use if it represented a conflict between reality & compelled speech, but Maya has said all along that she's completely willing to use courtesy pronouns in the workplace.

Not right. She has just said that she has not stated a general position about workplaces

Agreed, Hereward.

Five myths and truths about my case
Maya Forstater

Jul 7, 2020

Myth 3: “She insists on misgendering people in the workplace”
Another variation on this theme is not that I “misgendered” someone at work but that I insisted that I would.
Example:

Truth: I have repeatedly said, both directly to CGD and in my witness statement, and under intense cross examination at the hearing, that I am willing to use preferred pronouns, and of course treat individuals with respect.
The judgment sets out (at 5.1 and 5.2) the question that was being asked in the preliminary hearing. It was not about pronouns or the specific situation of how I lost my job — it was simply about whether my belief that sex is real, immutable and important is a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010 (and conversely whether other people’s belief that everyone has a gender identity which effectively trumps sex is also a philosophical belief). Questions about the specific circumstances in which I lost my job are for a further hearing."
mforstater.medium.com/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489

Not right. She has just said that she has not stated a general position about workplaces

Read my post again, Robin - you're a lawyer, right?

I said that Maya had consistently said that she would use courtesy pronouns.

There's no reason that she would need to take a general position on anyone else's workplace re pronoun use.

& she hasn't.

Out of interest, what are the origins of the Equal Treatment bench Book?

As in authors / organisations behind it?

It is unclear. From the Law Gazette article linked prevously,

"The Judicial College declined to identify the external experts and organisations that assist in training and formulation of policy. ‘It is not necessary or in the public interest to make public the names of all those involved in this work,’ it said."

Victoria McCloud (Times "youngest Queen’s Bench Master of the High Court of England and Wales when she was appointed, aged 40, in 2010 — and is only the second woman to hold that post. She has a string of other achievements, all of which matter more to her than the reason she is often singled out: she is the first and still the only transgender judge in the UK. " )

Oxford Faculty of Law bio:
"Headlines: 70s six year old meets mainframe and teleprinter. Becomes 80s geek game-coding trans nerd, then 90s neural net, distributed learning and cell simulation obsessive. Turns AI/brain researcher, millennial lawyer, author and judge but with feet (and other peripherals) still planted in academic things, the internet and the future of humanity.

Associate Fellow, Global Network on Extremism and Technology, GNET, King's College University of London.

Affiliate of the CSLS Swiss Re Programme for Civil Justice Systems

Expert Advisor, All Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence

Judge, Master of the Senior Courts Queen's Bench Division

Law Faculty Athena SWAN website committee, Oxford

Equal Treatment Bench Book committee, HM Judiciary

One of the 100 Women (1919-2019) in the First 100 Years exhibit and archive

Chartered Psychologist of the British Psychological Society (BPS)

Chartered Psychologist of the Psychological Society of Ireland (PsSI)

International affiliate member of the American Psychological Association (APA)

Core interests: Law and Artificial Intelligence, Social Media Regulation, Ethical Business Regulation, Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and sustainable development especially in technological contexts."
www.law.ox.ac.uk/people/victoria-mccloud

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4208155-The-Times-Law-section-Thursday-1st-April-Trans-judge-wants-a-more-diverse-judiciary

Great article in Lesbian and Gay News.

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/05/fact-checking-forstater-dealing-with-the-eight-maya-myths-by-lgn-legal-commentator-dennis-kavanagh/

I am very happy to use peoples preferred pronouns. But if my child sees a transwoman and asks me why is that man wearing a dress and make up, I will tell her the truth. That anyone can wear a dress or make up. And that that is a man who really thinks he is a woman and that it is kind to say she and her and don't point and state.

I will teach my daughters to be wary of men.
I will not make it harder for my daughters to distinguish men from women.

Unless and until I see hard evidence that transwomen as a group do not show the same patterns of violence against women and girls that men do, I will be teaching them to be as wary of TW as of men.

That is my duty as a parent. And I don't care if that hurts people's feelings.

from Dennis Kavenagh 'Fact Check' linked above:

"Myth #1 – Forstater believes you have the right be being rude at work
It has been written of Forstater that if working with a transwoman she “wants to refer to that woman as “he”, regardless of the pain that would cause”. This is not supported by the evidence. Even the original tribunal (which ruled against Forstater) accepted that she would “In most social and professional settings use a person’s preferred pronouns and avoid drawing attention to their sex if this makes them uncomfortable: her reservation of the right to do otherwise is in circumstances where it is relevant to do so – e.g. where these very issues are being legitimately debated, or in sports or healthcare contexts, or where single sex provision and/or bodily privacy are concerned, or in order to ensure that children or vulnerable women are enabled to speak clearly and without inhibition about their own experiences and perceptions” (Appellant’s skeleton argument)."

NB "“wants to refer to that woman as “he”, regardless of the pain that would cause” from Independent opinion piece by Robin Moira White & Molly Mulready archive.vn/mrYc0#selection-741.0-760.0

@MForstater

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

#IstandwithMaya

...as do many others xx

"Courtesy pronouns"

That word courtesy is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Because if the options are
a. Call this man 'she' or
b. Lose your job

I'd suggest it's less a 'courtesy' and more a threat.
Unless perhaps I'm being harsh, and we should reconsider that
"It rubs the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again"
is also a 'courtesy'?

I don't think its kind to tell/imply to children, especially girls, that they should not refer to adult male human beings as men (and use accurate male pronouns). It is invitable for some children this risks planting the possibility that changing sex is an option for them also.

It's annoying enough to have seen years of misinformation about what Maya actually did in her workplace. To see the misinformation continue to be pushed, albeit less directly, on this thread is extremely annoying.

I would have expected a barrister to have regard to the actual facts. But I'm not that surprised.

I hadn't read a lot of the maya Forstater case before this week but I have to say, I think maya is becoming a bit of a hero of mine....

I can see with my own eyes exactly what she has said, and I can see that she has been misrepresented by RobinMoiraWhite and others.

Best of luck, maya!

@Barracker

"Courtesy pronouns"

That word courtesy is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Because if the options are
a. Call this man 'she' or
b. Lose your job

I'd suggest it's less a 'courtesy' and more a threat.
Unless perhaps I'm being harsh, and we should reconsider that
"It rubs the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again"
is also a 'courtesy'?

I entirely agree. But I felt that Robin was somewhat misrepresenting Maya's position, so it seemed a convenient & hopefully undeletable euphemism.

OP, I've been following the gender wars since about 2008/9, and in all that time I've never seen ANY formulation of a gender critical viewpoint that is deemed acceptable by gender ideologues or their supporters, no matter how moderately or cautiously it is expressed.

There is no possibility of us ever being able to magically alight on the right language which is kind and sensitive enough, and then being able to have the debate. This is because it is not the language which the sex denialists reject. It is the existence of an alternative viewpoint itself. That is why we have ended up in the courts on this.

It's like when women are blamed for their own domestic abuse: 'she brought it on herself for being a bitch'. The truth is that there is no behaviour or language that can protect you in the face of a dynamic of misogynistic attack, whether that's being beaten up by your partner, or getting a Twitter pile-on for having the temerity to defend your existing sex-based rights.

Exactly. Perfectly said.

@nauticant

It's annoying enough to have seen years of misinformation about what Maya actually did in her workplace. To see the misinformation continue to be pushed, albeit less directly, on this thread is extremely annoying.

I would have expected a barrister to have regard to the actual facts. But I'm not that surprised.

Fortunately the facts of a case are as found by the judge, not as asserted by one of the parties. Wouldn't be much point in having a hearing otherwise.

One could say that facts are observed, not asserted...

Facts are observable, fortunately.
Females are biologically distinct from males, for example. That's an observable fact.
The idea that men can 'feel female' is an easily disprovable assertion. Even women can't 'feel female' any more than blue eyed people can feel blue eyed.

So where does that leave us?
With facts.
Men are not women, no matter how much they assert they are, and no matter how much censorship is employed to prevent women from factually stating "that man is a man", and no matter the extent to which they are prepared to bully actual women into pretending otherwise.