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.

Squeezed out!

Does this ruling mean that workplaces cannot demand that employees include pronouns in email signatures or encourage employees to declare pronouns in meetings for example?

In no way am I suggesting that transgender people should be misgendered, they are of course free to share or not share their preferred pronouns.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

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?

Funnily enough replies are turned off on this tweet.

I just took a look at Twitter and loads of accounts are spouting this while spitting blood at 'terfs'

I do wonder how many brain cells that movement has collectively

I've just realised that's a banned phrase sorry mumsnet ! I hate it but it's meant as an illustration of the ridiculousness of the argument being made !

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

They're putting it out for their community whom they'd mislead and to add to the confusion for the baffled public at large who have no idea at all what's been going on.

Evan Davis now enjoying the segment about Keeping Up with the Kardashians. But they're still strugging to find space for today's landmark legal case.

Evan Davis is laughing about eyebrows and the Kardashians on PM.

With regard to the pivot:

"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."

The sensible thing is to say great - a misunderstanding then, and continue with our work in securing sex based rights.

The whole 'did they/ didn't they' detracts from the forward momentum. I expect now there is allowed to be a debate this may be the new distraction posed.

It has been confirmed that a focus on sex based rights is legitimate.

We can just keep on pulling, focusing on what we want for women and girls (sex based definitions) and ignore those who want to get into arguments that detract from this.

Also listening to PM, Evan hasn't even had to mention it, the newsreader is just reading the headlines and it is soooooo squeezed out of the programme.

Serious BBC news programme PM thinks a little chat about the end of the Kardashians TV show is more important than the Maya case.

OK then

Why does the BBC persist in news bulletins repeating the finding of the original tribunal that Maya's belief was NOT worthy of respect in a democratic society? Why not report the finding of the appeal tribunal that it IS worthy of respect?

Oh.

One of the replies to CGD is:

“U ok hun”

My favourite is this one

@nauticant

Evan Davis now enjoying the segment about Keeping Up with the Kardashians. But they're still strugging to find space for today's landmark legal case.

The headline item is mealy-mouthed and, dare I say it, misleading. It was not her “approach” that was criticised, it was her beliefs - which have now been upheld as lawful, protected, widely held and consistent with the law. The BBC are wankers.

@CriticalCondition

Evan Davis is laughing about eyebrows and the Kardashians on PM.

I was just about to mention that. So annoying. I’ve emailed them.

Here we go...

Ooh, posted too soon!

Accidentally 'misgendering' someone is not enough to count as harassment. Nor would using the correct pronoun in the absence of knowledge/memory. Constantly references someones sex could though. On the other hand insisting everyone announce their pronouns or referring to someone as 'cis' who was GC would also be harassment.

I take back my snark. Maya's case is being covered and Davis is engaging with the discussion responsibly.

Regarding the CGD statement, it reads as if the reason they fired Maya was because of her beliefs, as her beliefs are now protected that surely doesn't auger well for the Tribunal which may be why their lawyers are looking into it

Evan Davis is framing it as if Maya made comments to colleagues. Don't let the facts of this case get in the way of your views , will you Evan.

@TheSingingRingingTree

Does this ruling mean that workplaces cannot demand that employees include pronouns in email signatures or encourage employees to declare pronouns in meetings for example?

In no way am I suggesting that transgender people should be misgendered, they are of course free to share or not share their preferred pronouns.

Yes! I was just thinking this too

Congratulations Maya, it has been long time coming. I was also waiting for Evan Davies to discuss the issue. He did, though even a short interview with Maya would have been better. The best place for an interview with her would have been Woman's Hour but I do not think it will happen as they declined her the interview after the hearing about a month ago (though it had been scheduled, but they replaced it with an exciting discussion about sharing the bathwater...). They told her that they wanted to interview her after the verdict, but she said it would have been like interviewing the sufragettes AFTER they had won the vote...So we need to turn to The Times and The Mess We Are In on you tube to see and watch the interviews. BBC is too woke to talk about women's rights.

BBC just had a couple of sentences on the main news. Factual. Just the verdict ( dh noted no "other POV "

@Threadbaretoe

With regard to the pivot:

"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."

The sensible thing is to say great - a misunderstanding then, and continue with our work in securing sex based rights.

The whole 'did they/ didn't they' detracts from the forward momentum. I expect now there is allowed to be a debate this may be the new distraction posed.

It has been confirmed that a focus on sex based rights is legitimate.

We can just keep on pulling, focusing on what we want for women and girls (sex based definitions) and ignore those who want to get into arguments that detract from this.

Yes, very good point. And let's just keep framing this in terms of what we're working towards (securing rights and safety of women and girls), and reject the framing that this is about hateful attitudes toward trans people - as represented in that appalling BBC news website article today.

(I've been following this thread all day but only just getting round to posting, so I'm adding my and thanks to Maya.)