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.

@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

I did a silent 'YES!!' At work today when I got the BBC notification through. This is huge!

The sheer confusion is huge.

The TRAs are arguing on Twitter that if GC feminists want their own spaces then they should campaign for them.

Hmmm ... and what should we call these women’s places?

You couldn’t make it up.

a generous donor (not her!)

I totally assumed it was her! Thanks for clarifying.

@Paralithic

The sheer confusion is huge.

The TRAs are arguing on Twitter that if GC feminists want their own spaces then they should campaign for them.

Hmmm ... and what should we call these women’s places?

You couldn’t make it up.

If ever there was an example of the sheer insanity of all this that is the perfect illustration.

The TRAs are arguing on Twitter that if GC feminists want their own spaces then they should campaign for them

reminds me of this thread by a TRA who harassed women at WPUK meetings www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4265668-Trans-in-the-UK-What-the-Hell-are-we-going-to-do

@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's bonkers, and so bloody predictable now.

On the old Maya thread, there were posters saying they hope she loses so she doesn't win the right to discriminate against/harass trans people at work.

Wouldn't have it when they were told that that wasn't at all what the case was about and no one would support that. We even linked to Ben Coopers specific examples during the appeal of the difference between holding a belief and using the belief to harass someone, to prove that the case wasn't asking for the right to do that, but nope, wouldn't have it.

Now the classic reverse ferret where they have to deny they ever said X, despite all the evidence that they did, all to convince themselves that the ''t*rfs'' lost.

Did anyone else hear non-binary Jamie on LBC? Whiny petulance about how it was all so unfair that now GC people couldn't be silenced and sacked from their employments.

It would have sounded awful any other day but saying this today and immediately after Naomi Cunningham had provided her analysis was a terrible look.

Now the classic reverse ferret where they have to deny they ever said X, despite all the evidence that they did, all to convince themselves that the ''t*rfs'' lost.

There's a documentary non Netflix called "Behind the Curve" about flat earthers. I watched it with DD to help develop her critical thinking. It's fascinating the way these people think. Science is about figuring out way things work, whereas flat earthers (and TRAs) have already decided how things work and are looking for any "evidence" they can find to back their view. If they find evidence that contradicts their view then they work out why this evidence is wrong. It's a really interesting watch and there are lots of parallels.

Going back to the comments about pronouns and misgendering people, is they/them still an acceptable neutral term.

I very rarely use he or she and use they instead. For example where is x? When they get back will you ask them to come and see me.

One of the replies to CGD is:

“U ok hun”

My favourite is :

"Cry harder"

@NecessaryScene

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.

Excellently worded.

Stonewall have an... interesting... take.

"Today, an Employment Tribunal Appeal ruled that ‘gender critical’ beliefs are protected under the Equality Act as ‘philosophical beliefs’. But the judgement is very clear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse, harm or discriminate against others."
twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1402955054018174978?s=19

While this news may be hard to hear, we must remember that this case has no bearing on the protections that trans people have in the workplace. In fact, these protections have been clearly re-affirmed in the ruling itself.

It is hard to hear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse others?

It looks like some are seeking to occupy the states of "this is terrible" and "this is a very good outcome" simultaneously. Schrödinger would have loved it.

It is hard to hear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse others?

I know. They can't even hear themselves.

Honestly, you would think, that after all the foot in mouth rubbish they've spouted lately, they would scrutinise every single utterance before pressing send.

And it's quite something that Maya must have said hundreds of times that she had absolutely no intention of harassing anyone. That's not the point. The point is to be able to say 'that's a man and this is why it's important' and not be shut down or, in her case, fired.

And yes, as someone has commented on Twitter, saying that women can't harass transwomen is not meant to be reassuring to transwomen, it's meant to reframe women as the aggressor.

But the judgement is very clear that no philosophical belief gives someone the right to abuse, harm or discriminate against others

Pity they didn't tell themselves this before writing that ''nice business you got here'' letter to Allison Bailley's Chambers, eh?

And it's quite something that Maya must have said hundreds of times that she had absolutely no intention of harassing anyone. That's not the point. The point is to be able to say 'that's a man and this is why it's important' and not be shut down or, in her case, fired.

But of course saying "that's a man" is harassment and quite possibly life threatening

Ahh yes, Stonewall must now be absolutely dreading the Allison Bailey case.

@Datun

And yes, as someone has commented on Twitter, saying that women can't harass transwomen is not meant to be reassuring to transwomen, it's meant to reframe women as the aggressor.

Bang on.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

And it's quite something that Maya must have said hundreds of times that she had absolutely no intention of harassing anyone. That's not the point. The point is to be able to say 'that's a man and this is why it's important' and not be shut down or, in her case, fired.

But of course saying "that's a man" is harassment and quite possibly life threatening

"Literally" life threatening, surely

I totally agree that there's a lot of frantic re-framing going on, but it's still bizarre to see a movement that is so totally invested in believing that everyone hates them. Despite being told, calmly and repeatedly (and in 3000 measured and compassionate words in JKR's case) that there is no hate.

But still, here we are: lololol TERFs are so clapped they’re celebrating a court ruling that said they have no right to discriminate and harass as their beliefs are just that, beliefs. You lost, weirdos!

(quote from twitter ^)

Bit late to the party. So coming here to and offer huge congratulations and heart felt thanks to Maya before reading whole thread. Compelled belief is not law in the UK thanks to you. Absolute shero.

Well, I'd hope that nobody is engaging on those terms (the deliberate misframing) - a correction and move on, there's no point to engaging with bad faith actors beyond correction.

Will Moy (Full Fact) gave evidence to a Brexit hearing and reported something Tom Phillips said:

"When malicious actors find ways to exploit those and turn them against your audiences, it’s time to update your reporting process so that your powerful platforms and principles can’t be misused."

twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1182378697090879490?s=20

PM is now on Radio 4. Will they try to squeeze coverage of the court decision out of the programme and, if not, will Evan Davis engage with it in a journalistic and even-handed way?