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.

@heathspeedwell

One hour to go, I'm trying to work but I can't concentrate on anything else!

Yeah I’m absolutely shitting it.

I’m so nervous. I hope common sense prevails.

Sarah Smith was the presenter. I don't know her but she just seemed to be parroting Stonewall stuff. Cherry was awesome.
I am pretty sure she was the one who interviewed Graham linehan on newsnight in that horrible uncomfortable hostile interview. I'm sure she was following the BBC line but I think it's her opinion too.

Like, I'm not anti-trans, I'm pro women. I don't mind what adults do, or dress or call themsevelse, NOMB. But, I DO mind that most girls are sexually harrassed/worse in school and I DO mind that 41 women have been murdered by men since Sarah Everard was killed. So I'm pro-women because that's my tribe that's dying and being assaulted and terrified. I'm no more anti-trans than I am anti-men or anti-poor-legislation

@Clymene

Sarah Smith was the presenter. I don't know her but she just seemed to be parroting Stonewall stuff. Cherry was awesome.

I’ve heard Smith on this before. She’s been extremely and unpleasantly woke.

I’ve heard Smith on this before. She’s been extremely and unpleasantly woke.

She didn't do particularly well.

Just listened to Joanna Cherry. The interviewer was trying to create the usual Fox News fake alarm about "hate speech " and Joanna Cherry was very firmly having none of it.
Brava that woman.

@Cailin66

June that is a problem for sure. I think it's because - gender critical - sounds negative. That you are -critical- and therefore - against something. And most people have no clue what being gender critical actually means. I've tried this with my DH too, he thinks I'm nuts. At the end of the day it means that we believe biological women are women. And trans women are not biological women. More than a belief, because it's an actual biological fact.

To what extent can your DH's confusion be eliminated by asking him a question? "DH, if we split up would you be equally open about your next sexual partner being a woman with a penis, or a woman who used to have a penis, or would you prefer to sleep with a woman who was born female and never changed?"

@Soontobe60

Damn, missed it. Anyone got a link?

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000wsxc

go to about 2.46

Blunt but effective.

"DH, if we split up would you be equally open about your next sexual partner being a woman with a penis, or a woman who used to have a penis, or would you prefer to sleep with a woman who was born female and never changed?"

I don't think that's the gotcha people seem to think it is. Men can be bisexual and who he would personally choose as a sexual partner really isn't the point.
I know men's sexual entitlement is a priority for most men but it doesn't need to become the centre of every single argument!

I think it would be too unpredictable for Woman's Hour to cover this today but have a look at this:

twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1402899494019244033

I think it's because - gender critical - sounds negative. That you are -critical- and therefore - against something. And most people have no clue what being gender critical actually means

Yes this has been discussed in another thread. The reason GC thinking has been vilified is that people don’t know what “gender” means and also don’t know what “critical” means. The uninformed interpretation is that it’s about not liking trans people, hence the constant “transphobic” accusations. The truth that this is about questioning a highly controversial view about gender being an internal essence (like a soul) is more tricky for people to grasp.

@nauticant

Blunt but effective.

Acknowledging that I use captioning so I'm not alert to nuances of tone, but that seemed to be a reasonable exchange.

Yes, it's dawning on them that there is a bandwagon to jump on. A little late in the day, like their sex&gender programmes that happened after the GRA consultation closed.

@Melroses

Yes, it's dawning on them that there is a bandwagon to jump on. A little late in the day, like their sex&gender programmes that happened after the GRA consultation closed.

Woman's Hour, that is.

Jedi my DH is great totally on my side in this. He just finds some of it confusing, because it is confusing to most people. So he wouldn't understand the phrase - gender critical - but he most certainly does not think a trans women is a woman. I'm not going to sweat the small stuff like explaining GC to him. I just tell him about women's safe spaces and he totally gets that.

To distract myself I am watching Matt Hancock being grilled on the Covid response I find it almost impossible to believe he's only 42

Yes Midsomer that's it. It took me a very long time to understand all of this myself. But we most certainly need a better phrase than - gender critical - in my opinion. I like your - definition - I might use it elsewhere.

Just love when Hancock is being interviewed. It always makes me laugh. He's a loveable scamp even if I disagree with most of what he says. 26 minutes to go ..........

Name check on the Forstater case on Woman's Hour by Emma Barnett as part of "today's question is about free speech".

Good lord, Woman's Hour are actually mentioning Maya's case.

Too little, too late. But about fucking time.

@AvantGardening

I’m so nervous. I hope common sense prevails.

God, yes, me too. I feel like I'm on trial myself.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

She did define it later as people who believe sex is immutable and that women should have sex based services and spaces.

Sounds very apartheid. Not a long leap from:

"She did define it later as people who believe skin colour is immutable and that white people should have white based services and spaces."

It's too exclusionary and divisive, versus inclusive. We should be supporting gender diverse people, with of course proper safeguards that already exist within the Equality act where there is a legitimate purpose - but those need to be legitimate and not just to exclude and denigrate others.

If the judgement supports Maya, then all other sorts of beliefs that people may not agree with can be expressed as well without consequence. Scary actually. Be careful what you wish for.

Good lord, Woman's Hour are actually mentioning Maya's case.

Too little, too late. But about fucking time.

I think they've scuppered their chance of an interview with her.