Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Wishing her the very best of luck. twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402310977115279362?s=20

I'll be absolutely gutted if the original decision isn't overturned, but at least her case has let a lot of sunlight in.

Right then, narratives from the trans activists. So far I'm seeing "she wasn't employed so this is a nothing decision" and using the quote "This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity" to say that nothing has changed and Maya Forstater will lose.

Just seen another tweet stating the same thing. This must be the party line they are going with.

How odd. They're trying to push the "sex is irrelevant" line hard?

Time for my favourite picture I think

While this is great, it is absolutely crazy it was ever needed in the first place. As the judgement points out Maya's beliefs are totally in line with the law and how it sees sex. Actually I think that part is important too:

Not only is it worthy of respect, but it is also one that is consistent with the common law under which sex is regarded as binary and fixed at birth for the purposes of all legal provisions which make a distinction between men and women:

The BBC’s article is crap. But why am I surprised?

Congratulations Maya!

Also "as a tran person I now feel horribly unsafe, people could kill mean now and the courts would support them".

On this idea that believing someone is a man 'takes away' their idea they are a woman. I remember during the gay marriage debate, Evangelical Christians got very upset with the idea of gay marriage because they felt it tarnished their own marriages and ruined the concept of marriage for them. As people correctly pointed out, this made no sense. Someone else getting married in a way you disapprove of has absolutely no impact on your own relationship. What other people do in their private lives cannot possibly affect YOUR life.

It's interesting to see some trans people making similar arguments to the Christians. If I don't believe that someone is really a man or a woman, that belief doesn't impact on them in the slightest. They are still entitled to believe what they like about themselves, and (to paraphrase John Stewart Mill here) there is nothing I can actually do to take that belief away from them! Unless they are saying that their sense of self, or beliefs, are so weak that they need absolute agreement from everyone else to prop them up...but it's accepted that no one has a right to everyone believing the same things they do in order to shore up their identity.

I've been called a man before, I've had people doubt my bisexuality, I've had Christian friends who don't really believe I'm atheist (I must SURELY hear god speaking to me at least sometimes.) None of this bothers me at all. Them disagreeing with me has no impact whatsoever on my identity. It doesn't make me less of a woman, or bisexual, or atheist - it can't possibly take anything away from me because it's just not the kind of thing you can take. So while I feel sorry that Katy feels their womanhood is being taken away by the beliefs of others, my sympathy has limits because the simple answer is that people will disagree with you and you just have to live with it.I'm amazed that people can get through to adulthood under the delusion that everyone has to agree with them or else their identity is threatened.

A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex

The TRAs won't like that framing

I think it's sick that anyone would want to take that from me

That's pretty lame. How can what someone else believes take anything away from you?

No-one's stopping you believing you're a woman, and how could they?

You're free to believe what you like, just as Maya is.

I find it incredible that we have to celebrate what is common sense and human decency...but we do. Well done Maya. The fight needs to go on.

This section in the judgment caught my eye:

c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.

Could the legal eagles here clarify? Does it hint that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment means more than simply thinking about transitioning?

Congratulations Maya, I'm so delighted you've been successful 💐

Women are amazing 🌟

Amazing. So chufffed that Maya has been vindicated. Thank you for your bravery.

@SelfPortraitWithEels

[Flowers] for Maya!

I don't get that bit of the judgement, though - what other protected characteristics might be relevant if someone doesn't qualify for gender reassignment?

There may be a case for discrimination under any of the other protected characteristics - sex, race, pregnancy, disability etc. - that's how I read it.

Another one who was madly refreshing here. Such amazing news, bloody well done Maya.

BBC article only quotes the judge from the old court case which she lost and doesn’t quote the rationale of the new judge at all. Should complain to the bbc about mixing sex and gender and the issue of imbalanced quotation.

That's pretty lame. How can what someone else believes take anything away from you?

Montgomerie and it seems others are apparently trying to imply with identikit wording that it is somehow about denying their ability to have a family. Yeah, me neither.

And thank you

@nauticant

Right then, narratives from the trans activists. So far I'm seeing "she wasn't employed so this is a nothing decision" and using the quote "This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity" to say that nothing has changed and Maya Forstater will lose.

I wonder what that's all about? Is it that they only see things straight in front of their face, and from their own, immediate point of view, over things that are only relevant to them?

It means women can talk about sex segregation and why it's important, in terms of sex being real and binary.

They can talk about it in terms of sports, healthcare, changing rooms, toilets, linguistic clarity, schools, the lot.

And if they suffer any detriment because of it, they have recourse to the law.

It doesn't mean that they can run after a specific transwoman yelling you're a man. Maya said she wouldn't dream of doing that.

@UnnecessaryFennel

This is so brilliant - and also so completely fucking bonkers.

'Woman wins legal right to say biological sex is a thing.'

Fucking hell, well done Maya, you are amazing. But it's just so insane that you ever ended up in this position in the first place. I hope this will really open some eyes to the madness so many women have been negotiating for so long.

Sometimes I need to go and knock my head against the table. Have we all had to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds, and put a woman through such an ordeal, all to be able to say out loud that you can't change your biological sex, a straightforward fact?

@Shedbuilder

This section in the judgment caught my eye:

c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.

Could the legal eagles here clarify? Does it hint that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment means more than simply thinking about transitioning?

IANAL but I think it means that people also have protections under sex and sexual orientation maybe even disability in some cases.

@SelfPortraitWithEels

[Flowers] for Maya!

I don't get that bit of the judgement, though - what other protected characteristics might be relevant if someone doesn't qualify for gender reassignment?

Footnote: A trans person could potentially bring a claim for harassment related to gender reassignment (where the definition under s.7(2) is satisfied), sex (see e.g. P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ICR 795 at paras 17 to 22), disability based on the conditions of Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder (see EHRC Code at para 2.28), or even a philosophical belief that gender identity is paramount and that a trans woman is woman.

Shedbuilder
One possibility is belief.
For example:-
Transgender beliefs are also protected beliefs. So you can’t harass someone for believing TWAW and more than you can harass them for believing TWANW.

Maya, I’m sorry that you had to go through all of this. But I am also so glad you did because this judgement is so important for women, even those who haven’t realised how important it is.

Thank you. 💐 So very much! 💐

@WeeBisom

On this idea that believing someone is a man 'takes away' their idea they are a woman. I remember during the gay marriage debate, Evangelical Christians got very upset with the idea of gay marriage because they felt it tarnished their own marriages and ruined the concept of marriage for them. As people correctly pointed out, this made no sense. Someone else getting married in a way you disapprove of has absolutely no impact on your own relationship. What other people do in their private lives cannot possibly affect YOUR life.

It's interesting to see some trans people making similar arguments to the Christians. If I don't believe that someone is really a man or a woman, that belief doesn't impact on them in the slightest. They are still entitled to believe what they like about themselves, and (to paraphrase John Stewart Mill here) there is nothing I can actually do to take that belief away from them! Unless they are saying that their sense of self, or beliefs, are so weak that they need absolute agreement from everyone else to prop them up...but it's accepted that no one has a right to everyone believing the same things they do in order to shore up their identity.

I've been called a man before, I've had people doubt my bisexuality, I've had Christian friends who don't really believe I'm atheist (I must SURELY hear god speaking to me at least sometimes.) None of this bothers me at all. Them disagreeing with me has no impact whatsoever on my identity. It doesn't make me less of a woman, or bisexual, or atheist - it can't possibly take anything away from me because it's just not the kind of thing you can take. So while I feel sorry that Katy feels their womanhood is being taken away by the beliefs of others, my sympathy has limits because the simple answer is that people will disagree with you and you just have to live with it.I'm amazed that people can get through to adulthood under the delusion that everyone has to agree with them or else their identity is threatened.

Excellent post 👏👏