@GrammarTeacher you said:
multiple threads on yesterday's judgement that missed the bit where the judge pointed out that harassment was still harassment
I did several times. Got told I wasn't a real feminist because I happened to disagree.
You haven't come back to me to tell me which threads, so I looked at the 2 main threads on Maya's case on FWR, and it is simply not true that this was missed. I didn't see your name appear on either of those threads, so maybe you missed the discussion. I didn't see anyone being told they are "not a real feminist."
On the longest thread about the case, called Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am , harassment was indeed discussed.
At 10.48 - 18 minutes after the judgment was released - @CardinalLolzy summarised the judgment including the passages about the judgment not sanctioning harassment or taking away transpeople's protection against harassment.
A number of other posters discussed what might be harassment, both in Maya's case and in theory, and @ANewCreation posted another extract from the judgment relating to harassment, :
That is not to say, of course, that the Claimant can, as a result of her belief, disregard
the GRC; clearly, she cannot do so in circumstances where the acquired gender is legally relevant, e.g. in a claim of sex discrimination or harassment. Referring to a trans person by their pre-GRC gender in any of the settings in which the EqA applies could amount to harassment related to one or more protected characteristics; whether or not it does will depend, as in any claim of
harassment, on a careful assessment of all relevant factors, including whether the conduct was unwanted, the perception of the trans person concerned and whether it is reasonable for the impugned conduct to have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the trans person. A simple example of a situation where referring
to a trans person by their pre-GRC gender would probably not amount to harassment is where the trans person in question is happy to discuss their trans status or is sympathetic to or shares the Claimant’s gender-critical belief. The Tribunal itself acknowledged that “Many trans people are happy to discuss their trans status”, and had before it the uncontested evidence of Kristin Harrison, a gender-critical trans woman, who, presumably, would not have felt harassed by being referred to as a man in some circumstances. It is difficult, therefore, to understand the Tribunal’s conclusion that the Claimant’s belief “necessarily harms the rights of others through her refusal to accept the full effect of a GRC…”. Not only is this conclusion predicated on the incorrect assumption that the Claimant would always misgender trans persons, irrespective of the circumstances, and that the full effect of a GRC goes beyond legal purposes, but it also fails to recognise that whether there is harassment in a given situation is a highly fact-sensitive question.
At 15.59 @yourhairiswinterfire posted:
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 ''trfs'' lost.*
On the Victory for Maya! thread, most of the posts were not in discussion form, merely "Congrats!" type posts. However, @Zzelda (13.06), @notyours (13.11), @justanotherneighinparadise (13.15), @Ereshkigalangcleg (13.16), @jellybeansforbreakfast (13.24) all posted about the fact that the judgment did not give anyone a licence to harass trans people, and nor should it.
All those posters on FWR took their time to post, discuss, clarify and agree that, as you put it, harassment is still harassment.
Now, there was another thread on Maya's case, on AIBU, but as that board has nothing to do with FWR, you can't complain that the FWR board is "drowning out" other opinions because of things posted elsewhere. Is that where you were posting? I scrolled through that one too - including about 10 tedious pages about tampons - and your name doesn't appear there either. Nor is anyone called "not a real feminist", nor are any of the FWR regulars disrespectful, quite the opposite actually. All the insults are being slung from the opposite side. And yes, the issue of harassment came up, and yes, it was made clear that this case does not sanction harassment, and no GC poster has ever intimated that it does.
So where exactly were you posting?
Ultimately, it is really wrong and utterly disingenuous to say that something is being ignored or not discussed, when it in fact is extensively; it's an attempt to paint this board in a bad light using unfounded claims, and silence the voices on the FWR board, none of whom can or would stop you posting your viewpoints, opinions and facts if you wanted to.