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.

Maya on Times Radio now

[quote McDuffy]Found this a good read by one of her legal team
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly[/quote]
That is a very good read,..

Even organisations who do not consider themselves engaged in this debate need carefully to inspect their actions and policies to determine whether they have become institutionally discriminatory towards those who dissent from Gender Theory. The Scottish government has a range of policies, starting with the pending hate crime legislation, which need to reviewed. National police forces – some of whom have been taking the names of people who express Gender Critical thought and “checking their thinking” for signs of potential “hate crime” will now wish to consider whether any of this data is lawfully held and what their statistics actually and meaningfully represent.

Yes, it was all outside of work and it was a combination of things she had expressed a view about incl (unintentionally) misgendering someone once.

Excellent news!

Brilliant. This is what I'm hoping - that there will be an indirect trickle down

That linkedin piece is great - loved the line about the Californian scold's bridle!

It's most read on BBC... my mum sent me a message to celebrate too, she's second-hand radicalised by MN!

Amazing news. Thank you Maya!

It feels weird to be so pleased that thinking reality is reality is protected, but here we are.

Delighted with the outcome. The judgement is very clear and sensible.

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: I find it interesting that not only has SW misrepresented the EA10 but has also misrepresented common law and therefore institutions like the NHS may also be acting unlawfully by not taking account of common law.

I hope I'm right because the reminder of common law and we have had other reminders of this but so far some have ignored. This much coverage must be sending off flares all over the place

@CrumpetShaw

Yes, it was all outside of work and it was a combination of things she had expressed a view about incl (unintentionally) misgendering someone once.

And wasn't this a non-binary man who preferred to be referred to as 'they' rather than 'he'?

Just included in the lunchtime news on R2, with the line that 'the ruling sets a precedent for employment law and may affect others facing charges of unfair dismissal.' (or similar - paraphrasing) If I didn't know much about this I reckon I'd be boggling right now at the realisation that lots of women have lost their jobs for believing that biological sex is real.

The item was immediately followed by the story about the shockingly high percentage of girls facing sexual abuse and harassment in schools.

They're going to cover this in a sec on BBC one o clock news

Thanks for answering my question earlier. I’m fairly new to wanting to get my voice heard and “being brave”!

Another question. So I get that people can change GENDER. And I understand that gender is full of stereotypes etc. If someone wants to be called she/he/they That’s up to them I guess.

Why can’t we just accept that SEX cannot be changed. Basically I don’t want to be in a refuge with someone with XY chromosomes. I don’t care what their name is or if they have long hair or wear a dress or take hormones or have had surgery. Why don’t people start using SEX/GENETICS as a way to protect people? This absolutely cannot be changed.

So you want to compete in sport? You compete as XY OR XX. You need to go to a refuge? XX OR XY. You end up in prison? Again XX OR XY? Need to know how a certain medicine works in you? Are you XX OR XY?

On bbc 1

Can someone please link to the Employer saying this was 'disappointing '

WinterTrees :

"A bonkers sour grapes statement from Maya's former employers just read out on WH. 'The ruling is disappointing.' 'A step back for inclusivity.' "

@highame

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: I find it interesting that not only has SW misrepresented the EA10 but has also misrepresented common law and therefore institutions like the NHS may also be acting unlawfully by not taking account of common law.

I hope I'm right because the reminder of common law and we have had other reminders of this but so far some have ignored. This much coverage must be sending off flares all over the place

Excellent point highame would have thought it also applies to the MoJ and the distinction between prison estates, pertinent also for the recoding of crimes.

Only just dared to check! Thank you Maya, you brave, brave woman. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Just caught up with this thread!

Bloody well done Maya! Thank you!!

From the BBC report:
Where does this leave employers? Equality and employment law require them to recognise and uphold the rights of all in the workplace.
Ms Forstater's speech and beliefs are protected - but so are the rights of trans people. And if speech crosses the line from an honestly held belief to bullying, attacks and intimidation, then the scales very obviously tip in favour of protecting the victim.

Good.
I hope employers (and police) clearly understand that this works both ways round. And that they should not be complicit in bullying and intimidating women.

Oh God - Maya you are the absolute best!!!

If I didn't know much about this I reckon I'd be boggling right now at the realisation that lots of women have lost their jobs for believing that biological sex is real

It's arguable that the greater harm is the very large number of people who've had to keep quiet knowing that a wrong sentiment could cost them their jobs or at least lead to a disciplinary process.

@2021ismyyear

Thanks for answering my question earlier. I’m fairly new to wanting to get my voice heard and “being brave”!

Another question. So I get that people can change GENDER. And I understand that gender is full of stereotypes etc. If someone wants to be called she/he/they That’s up to them I guess.

Why can’t we just accept that SEX cannot be changed. Basically I don’t want to be in a refuge with someone with XY chromosomes. I don’t care what their name is or if they have long hair or wear a dress or take hormones or have had surgery. Why don’t people start using SEX/GENETICS as a way to protect people? This absolutely cannot be changed.

So you want to compete in sport? You compete as XY OR XX. You need to go to a refuge? XX OR XY. You end up in prison? Again XX OR XY? Need to know how a certain medicine works in you? Are you XX OR XY?

You are talking sense and your thoughts are based in reality 2021ismyyear but in TRA world that is not allowed.

Welcome to the side of truth, reality and common sense, the one which is determined to protect the rights of women and girls to safety, privacy, dignity and comfort in all aspects of their lives.

The report on bbc1 lunchtime news ahead of the Maya case is about young girls being sexually harassed. More evidence that girls and women need safe spaces as if we didn't already know that.

What a huge landmark decision. Incredibly important!
Well done to everyone involved in this.