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.

Good intro from fabulous Jane Hill

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.

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

@TheHandmadeTail

So you can get in trouble with your employer for misgendering someone you don’t even work with when you’re not even in work??

Some unpleasant people in the US office of CGD wanted Maya out for commenting on Phil Bunce receiving a women in business award, among other tweets. A lot of people were incredulous at Bunce being on the list of top 100 women but questioning that was never actually enough of a reason for dismissal in the UK. The US office seemed to see it as no risk to simply not renew a contract. There was never actually anything that would meet the standard.of harassment.

That's quite high. I can talk about someone at work as male if they are not there as o believe them to be male even if they believe themselves to be otherwise. As is frequently said here you use their name when they are there.

@Oblomov21

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.' "

It's in the bbc report

Maya Forstater: Woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweet www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579

@Oblomov21

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.' "

www.cgdev.org/article/cgd-statement-reaction-uk-employment-appeal-tribunal-overturning-original-decision

I had a quick look at today's Judgement. It's 61 pages long. And I'm not a lawyer.

From section 41:

41. Ms Russell also disagreed that the law of the land was that sex is immutable. Corbett, decided in 1971, was of its time and should no longer be considered good law. In any case, Parliament has decreed, by enacting s.9, GRA, that sex is not immutable and that a person does, upon obtaining a GRC, become ‘for all purposes’ a person of the acquired gender.

Surely, this is significant?

Yup, correct.

@CrumpetShaw

Would not using preferred pronouns constitute "harassment" in a workplace I wonder.

I would say it’s harassment if you repeatedly choose to purposely use the pronouns that you perceive the person to be. One way of not falling into this trap is to only use the persons name. Otherwise, you’re forever having to perform mental gymnastics to avoid offending someone. I genuinely find it very hard to remember anyone’s name these days, so would struggle here. I would never purposely use a different pronoun to the one a person would wish me to use.

@Oblomov21

I had a quick look at today's Judgement. It's 61 pages long. And I'm not a lawyer.

From section 41:

41. Ms Russell also disagreed that the law of the land was that sex is immutable. Corbett, decided in 1971, was of its time and should no longer be considered good law. In any case, Parliament has decreed, by enacting s.9, GRA, that sex is not immutable and that a person does, upon obtaining a GRC, become ‘for all purposes’ a person of the acquired gender.

Surely, this is significant?

The judge is quoting what the respondent’s counsel said. That is not his view.

A step back for inclusivity? Or an expensive outcome for the company for only being inclusive of the 'right kind' of people?

@Oblomov21

I had a quick look at today's Judgement. It's 61 pages long. And I'm not a lawyer.

From section 41:

41. Ms Russell also disagreed that the law of the land was that sex is immutable. Corbett, decided in 1971, was of its time and should no longer be considered good law. In any case, Parliament has decreed, by enacting s.9, GRA, that sex is not immutable and that a person does, upon obtaining a GRC, become ‘for all purposes’ a person of the acquired gender.

Surely, this is significant?

Not really - it’s what CDG argued, not what the Tribunal decided. Miss Russell represented CDG at the appeal.

(He goes on to explain in detail why the GRA doesn’t mean sex is not immutable)

BBC have finally covered it:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579

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.

Didn't Maya accidentally misgender Murray after she'd already lost her job, or am I misremembering?

It's hard to remember exactly because of all the misinformation that has been spread (though I suppose that's the point.)

Here's the statement from the Employer

LONDON – The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal today overturned a lower court ruling from 2019 in a case involving CGD Europe (CGDE), the Center for Global Development (CGD), and CGD President Masood Ahmed, brought by Maya Forstater, who was previously affiliated with the organizations.

Amanda Glassman, Chief Executive Officer of CGDE and Executive Vice President of CGD, released the following statement in reaction:

“The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe Judge Tayler got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act. Today’s decision is a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all. We’re currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers.”

www.spectator.co.uk/article/maya-forstater-s-win-is-a-victory-for-rational-thinking a good article from Dr Debbie

This is all over the news like a rash. I suppose we have been thirsty for something like this and here it is

Yes, you can avoid pronouns altogether I find, with a bit of thought. But if people are offended simply by inferring by the action of avoiding pronouns that your belief is that TWAM, which some are whenever there is a workaround as they expect you to validate their identity, that's not really your problem.

@Oblomov21

I had a quick look at today's Judgement. It's 61 pages long. And I'm not a lawyer.

From section 41:

41. Ms Russell also disagreed that the law of the land was that sex is immutable. Corbett, decided in 1971, was of its time and should no longer be considered good law. In any case, Parliament has decreed, by enacting s.9, GRA, that sex is not immutable and that a person does, upon obtaining a GRC, become ‘for all purposes’ a person of the acquired gender.

Surely, this is significant?

So do we dismiss any laws that came into being in 1971? What about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?

In case anyone had any lingering hope that the Women's Equality Party might come good on the day when women who believe that their biological sex is immutable and significant get to hear whether the law says so too...
Mandu Reid announces she's offline for the next week

mobile.twitter.com/mandureid

Not really - it’s what CDG argued, not what the Tribunal decided. Miss Russell represented CDG at the appeal.

It's also a misunderstanding as there are even exemptions in the GRA itself.

Mandu Reid announces she's offline for the next week

How surprising.

@Oblomov21

I had a quick look at today's Judgement. It's 61 pages long. And I'm not a lawyer.

From section 41:

41. Ms Russell also disagreed that the law of the land was that sex is immutable. Corbett, decided in 1971, was of its time and should no longer be considered good law. In any case, Parliament has decreed, by enacting s.9, GRA, that sex is not immutable and that a person does, upon obtaining a GRC, become ‘for all purposes’ a person of the acquired gender.

Surely, this is significant?

Para 41 is what the other side tried to argue.

This is what the Judge said about it:

115. Ms Russell sought to persuade us that the decision in Corbett is outdated and should not be followed, particularly in light of the GRA under which a person who obtains a GRC does “become for all purposes” the acquired gender.

We cannot see any real basis on which this appeal tribunal could disregard Corbett especially given that the House of Lords’ comments in Chief Constable of Yorkshire v A were made having regard to the Gender Recognition Bill: see para 42 of Chief Constable of Yorkshire v A. Society has, of course, moved on considerably since 1971, and, as stated in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, “awareness, knowledge and acceptance of transgender people has greatly increased over the last decade”.

However, the position under the common law as to the immutability of sex remains the same; and it would be a matter for Parliament, not a court or tribunal considering whether a belief is protected under s.10, EqA, to declare otherwise.

So do we dismiss any laws that came into being in 1971? What about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?

It's case law from 1971 which is now made out of date by the legislation introduced by Parliament. The other side's barrister was sort of misrepresenting the GRA 2004 anyway: s9(1) provides that they become legally their new sex/gender upon receiving a GRC for all purposes, and then s9(3) provides that there are exceptions to s9(1).

Sorry that was in reply to leafstamps earlier message. My reply function is not working 🤔

Didn't Maya accidentally misgender Murray after she'd already lost her job, or am I misremembering?

Correct.

(I've seen someone suggest the judgment arguably misgenders Bunce. Although it's hard to say...)