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.

This is a bit most oppressed ever™ from Baroness Falkner.

Mishal Husain: "the long process going from being to man to a woman".

Did any one else hear Baroness Falkner say that we all have the right not to be offended?

Baroness Falkner clarified that beliefs have been protected since the 2010 Equality Act

Did Baroness Faulkner just agree that anyone objecting to a transwoman in the women's toilets would potentially be harassing that TW?

Yes, she was wrong. As per the judge in Harry Miller's case who very explicitly stated that there is NOT a right not to be offended.

Baroness Falkner "It is not a victory to treat trans people any differently as rights holding people from anyone else"

Gawd Mishal, get a grip!

The "most oppressed evah!" narrative once again and a repeat for HB's comments - the BBC up to its usual level of fawning.

No one can harass anyone at work, that much should be obvious, but you can't force your belief in genderism onto everyone else no matter how painful people's non-belief is for you.

And Baroness, there is no right not to be offended. I'm afraid she came over quite badly there, sounding quite cagey I thought.

Did any one else hear Baroness Falkner say that we all have the right not to be offended?

I think that she was out of her depth in that interview.

It's sooooo frustrating that all of these interviews centre on trans people. We really need to challenge this and to try and make sure that people know our interests and motivations are centred on women!!

We need a mantra to cover this!

How can Today segue from Baroness Faulkner discussing the right to state biology to an item about girls missing education in low and middle income countries with all seriousness?

Why does no one say 'AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE TO USE ACCURATE LANGUAGE.'

I think that she was out of her depth in that interview.

Yes, that's a better way to put it. Felt very defensive.

It seems like this is one of the few occasions when the saying, Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan is not entirely true.

Is Falkner taking the success through gritted teeth?

It seems that many, many people (including Falkner) haven't taken the time to understand what the wider case is about. I'm apprehensive that this means if they could hinder due consideration of the implications for safeguarding and women's rights, they would.

If one day in is any guide, the meaning of the decision yesterday is being obscured in a fog of "but transwomen are so oppressed we must do nothing that will hurt their feelings". It's clear for example that this is the narrative preferred by the BBC.

It looks like Maya Forstater's huge achievement will need to be supplemented by a number of cases in court where women will have to sue employers and others because they've been discriminated against for having the PC of gender critical beliefs.

This isn't meant to sound negative, more that yesterday provided us with the tools but change will come from the use of those tools.

If you are campaigning to improve things for those with bowel cancer you don't get those focussed on liver cancer coming in and demanding their interests are centred.

Focussing on bowel cancer does not say anything about your thoughts about liver cancer.

If bowel cancer developments you. supported could lead to disadvantages to the interests of those with liver cancer (diverted funding etc) you wouldn't get people saying you hate those with liver cancer etc.

The reason this analogy doesn't work is that to do so would mean those supporting liver cancer would be denying bowel cancer exists and that it's all liver cancer.

They are still making the focus trans.
I am now saying, I'm actually advocating for sex based rights and and want to discuss the impact of (whatever the focus is) on women and girls!

Maya joins at 19:19

Should we not switch the argument to "men need to be more kind to gender non-conforming males? / they need to make it easier to expand the boundaries of manhood? "

I thought she sounded a little nervous, but the central message was that GC.views are and always have been part of the protected characteristics. As is gender reassignment.
This ruling changes nothing in terms of being polite and respectful of differing views in the workplace.
I think she was refusing to debate specific circumstances - quite sensibly. But I think she did tactfully say that trans people don't have the right to demand everyone agrees with them or that the presence of a colleague with GC views is incompatible in a workplace.
Women with GC views should not be discriminated against because of those views but equally shouldn't go out of their way to offend trans colleagues. I don't think many people would argue with that.

@Threadbaretoe

If you are campaigning to improve things for those with bowel cancer you don't get those focussed on liver cancer coming in and demanding their interests are centred.

Focussing on bowel cancer does not say anything about your thoughts about liver cancer.

If bowel cancer developments you. supported could lead to disadvantages to the interests of those with liver cancer (diverted funding etc) you wouldn't get people saying you hate those with liver cancer etc.

The reason this analogy doesn't work is that to do so would mean those supporting liver cancer would be denying bowel cancer exists and that it's all liver cancer.

They are still making the focus trans.
I am now saying, I'm actually advocating for sex based rights and and want to discuss the impact of (whatever the focus is) on women and girls!

Though you do get men complaining about breast cancer campaigns and saying they should support prostate cancer instead! (But I think that supports your point...)

It's funny who neither participant in that interview observed that, while it would be very unpleasant for a transwoman to be made to feel anxious about using the ladies, it could be terrifying to be a victim of rape and find yourself in the ladies with a large male-bodied person in a dress.

Why am I not surprised?

It's funny that*

Same thing occurred to me Grumpy. Why does one person have to suppress their legitimately held belief so another person can express theirs?

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

It's funny who neither participant in that interview observed that, while it would be very unpleasant for a transwoman to be made to feel anxious about using the ladies, it could be terrifying to be a victim of rape and find yourself in the ladies with a large male-bodied person in a dress.

Why am I not surprised?

Indeed Grumpy, but then we wouldn't be centering the males in that narrative and that would never do.

Also - nobody seems unduly concerned that (eg) a Catholic would go around telling all non-Catholics they will go to hell. People navigate 'being polite at work' all the time.

Obviously if someone deliberately ordered a pork meal at work, for a number of people including a Jewish person with no choice allowed, that might well be harrasment. But that is so far away from normal workplace etiquette that everyone would know that would be ludicrous.

I feel (as I have also heard on here) that 'but what if someone misgenders' is framed to put women in an aggressor position.

The actual difficult question is 'what should an employer do if a Muslim woman knows that work policy is to allow transwomen to use the ladies and objects'.

Or 'Should an employer knowing that there are Muslim women in the workplace, write a policy saying transwomen are free to use the ladies, without telling the workplace in general'.

A very religious ex colleague believed that gay people were sinners, and that they would go to hell. You would never have known that from her genuine, warm interactions with gay colleagues.

As long as everyone concerned is professional and adult about these things, we rub along just fine.

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

A very religious ex colleague believed that gay people were sinners, and that they would go to hell. You would never have known that from her genuine, warm interactions with gay colleagues.

As long as everyone concerned is professional and adult about these things, we rub along just fine.

Exactly. It really highlights how much immaturity and self-absorption drives so many TRAs - how little life experience they have - when they believe everything that even mildly contradicts their view of the world is literal violence.

Ordinary people negotiate these tricky 'difference of belief' issues every single day of their lives with no drama. It's usually just called 'good manners'.

Exactly. It really highlights how much immaturity and self-absorption drives so many TRAs - how little life experience they have - when they believe everything that even mildly contradicts their view of the world is literal violence.

My niece is a transman and early in her journey even mild disagreement was met with anger and hyperbole. Thankfully she's calmed down and realises that I might disagree over trans issues, but that I love her dearly and always will.