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.

WinterTrees that person can't even distinguish between sex and gender to start with so no wonder they're making no sense!

They have reframed "sex matters" as "My gender is the most important thing about me!"

The sheer confusion is huge.

@WinterTrees

I guess it was inevitable that there would be a frantic re-writing of the entire narrative in the wake of this judgement, but I'm finding the scale and extent of it pretty baffling.

This thread from a blue tick TRA twitter account with 57k followers. Someone who is obviously deeply embedded in the debate, who is claiming that GC feminists believe our gender is the single most important thing about us

twitter.com/aedison/status/1402943974151757828

When are they going to realise that the deliberate misrepresentation is only damaging themselves? That reality and reason are gaining traction and it's time to actually engage with proper, fact-based arguments to forge a way forward?

“oh, you’re gender critical? so you’re one of those people who don’t have a gender?” “WHAT? NO! My gender is the single most important thing about me.”

The state of that.
Hint: the clue's in the name. Gender critical. (Tbf I don't think it's the best moniker, but I would have thought by now people claiming to speak for GC women might have the tiniest clue that we don't believe anyone's gender - if they even have one - is the most important thing about them)

Sheila Fogerty is doing a slot on sex, gender, identity and conflicting interests on LBC at 3pm.....following on from the judgement

I can't see that person's tweets as I'm blocked. No idea why.

The sheer confusion is huge

It's deliberate. Before the case "Maya was harassing transpeople at work and her views are not worthy of respect" after the case "we never said that, and this case supports trans rights"

TRA: "x is always y you bigot"
GC: [unarguable proof that TRA is wrong]
TRA: we didn't mean it literally / we never said that / this is a win for X is always z.

The Judge in the original case was so totally captured by TRA ideology it was excruciating, impartiality and objectivity went completely out of the window. How can that Judge be trusted to rule fairly, he needs reminding that 'Justice is blind' and of the reasons why that is.

The sheer confusion is huge.

I think it's more deliberate obfuscation than confusion, tbh. The following tweet gives it away:

JSYK whenever they do the “actually I don’t care about my gender I care about my sex” thing that’s a really obvious lie, they see the two things as the same, don’t cede them any ground by accepting the premise that they aren’t dedicated to defending reactionary gender ideas

Further instructions then follow:

seeing this happen in my precious menchies and these people are truly idiots and bad liars and you should not engage with them

There's only so much damage limitation you can do by telling people how to think and which mantras to repeat. How long will it take before they realise we've now reached the point where instead of increasingly desperate deception and deflection, all the cunning tactics need to be dropped altogether so we can sort this mess out.

[quote McDuffy]Found this a good read by one of her legal team
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly[/quote]
It's excellent. And Mumsnet got a mention too!

Sorry ItsAll - I got distracted halfway through posting and ended up repeating you!

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

I think this is a Stonewall 'term' all my correspondence with the DWP talks about, "inclusion" and I keep pointing out that the Equality Act is not about 'inclusion' and that some discrimination is not just legal but desirable.

[quote McDuffy]I couldn't see a single supportive comment on the replies
twitter.com/CGDev/status/1402921904973942789[/quote]
One of the replies to CGD is:

“U ok hun”

I think there's both - deliberate straw-manning and disingenuous pretence, and also a lot of confusion over why gender does not equal sex - which is understandable since gender is widely used to mean sex in many contexts.

I've also seen a lot of both "This is a win for trans rights" and "Trans people are being persecuted by this ruling".

Could they be considering an out of court settlement with Maya to prevent a re-run of the original Employment Tribunal in light of this Judgement?

I don’t think the actual case has been heard yet so it wouldn’t be a re-run. This is only an appeal of the preliminary hearing.

Good read and summing up good

oldsquare.co.uk/forstater-v-cgd-europe-others/

The fawning over Avery Edison is what put me off listening to The Guilty Feminist.

I know it's been posted before but this from Peter Daly is outstanding:

www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly/

Bringing it on to Scotland

[quote littlbrowndog]Good read and summing up good

oldsquare.co.uk/forstater-v-cgd-europe-others/[/quote]
It is indeed

...the effect of the EAT’s judgment is that the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the Equality Act 2010 will apply both to gender critical beliefs and to other protected characteristics...
...
Consequently, gratuitous use of language in the workplace that someone in either group might reasonably find offensive could be unlawful harassment – for example, calling someone with gender critical beliefs a ‘terf’ or a ‘bigot’
...
respectful discussion or debate is unlikely to be unlawful and those holding opposing beliefs must tolerate each other, even if they find each other’s beliefs offensive
...
More generally, the EAT’s judgment in this case strongly emphasises the broad scope of beliefs that are protected by EqA10, s10 and the narrowness of the enquiry in which Tribunals should engage. Six-day inquisitions into a person’s beliefs of the kind that occurred in this case should be a thing of the past.

@GingerAndTheBiscuits

The fawning over Avery Edison is what put me off listening to The Guilty Feminist.

Avery is a homophobe.

@Soontobe60

Here is a link to the Sex Matters donations page: sex-matters.org/take-action/donate/

If you sign up for a year, your donation will be matched by a ‘generous donor’.

Sex matters is building an organisation to bring clarity back to policy, law and language, and undo the damage caused by the culture of “no debate” about sex and gender.

Consequently, gratuitous use of language in the workplace that someone in either group might reasonably find offensive could be unlawful harassment

I wonder if that would include the term ‘cis’.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

The sheer confusion is huge

It's deliberate. Before the case "Maya was harassing transpeople at work and her views are not worthy of respect" after the case "we never said that, and this case supports trans rights"

TRA: "x is always y you bigot"
GC: [unarguable proof that TRA is wrong]
TRA: we didn't mean it literally / we never said that / this is a win for X is always z.

It is indeed. See also:

"We've never used the term 'born in the wrong body'"

"We've never said sex isn't real and/or important"

"Stonewall has never said it wants to do away with sex as a category/sex segregated spaces."

PIVOT! PIVOT!

@sashh

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

I think this is a Stonewall 'term' all my correspondence with the DWP talks about, "inclusion" and I keep pointing out that the Equality Act is not about 'inclusion' and that some discrimination is not just legal but desirable.

Exactly, exclusion is warranted and necessary in numerous aspects of law and life and the DWP will be well aware of this since exclusion is in built into their raison d'etre.

Avery Edison is a not only homophobic and misogynistic but also a very confused individual.

For those speculating, the Sex Matters email says "a generous donor (not her!)".