CGD is not appealing Maya's judgment! Employment tribunal can proceed

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

CGD are not appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment that gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The judgment stands and is a legal precedent.

Next step: employment tribunal to hear the rest of the case.

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1409554171821531136

She did challenge some of the concepts of gender ideology that may conflict with women's rights, though, and it has served some to frame these as being transphobic, insulting, abusive etc.

I know a little about healthcare and health policy in LMIC (low and middle income countries) - and some of it would intersect with the work that Maya and her colleagues do in NGO and think tank agencies that create and implement policy in such countries.

It's crucial to be able to distinguish sex and gender in such settings and especially if you're to evaluate where your money goes to support particular groups such as women and children.

It's tremendously important to know the sex who is receiving financial and training support and scheduled to deliver services into communities in LMIC.

And, I agree with Maya's take on the complex issue of manels. Commitment to never participate in one recognises lived experience and sex or it doesn't.

It's my understanding that transphobia has no legal definition at all.

Plus it's not illegal to be transphobic. Even saying you don't like a cohort, isn't against the law. Plenty of people don't accept same-sex marriage, for instance. You could consider that homophobic, but it's completely legal.

From what I can gather, it's whether or not you veer into harassment or illegal discriminatory behaviour that counts.

know a little about healthcare and health policy in LMIC (low and middle income countries) - and some of it would intersect with the work that Maya and her colleagues do in NGO and think tank agencies that create and implement policy in such countries.

It's crucial to be able to distinguish sex and gender in such settings and especially if you're to evaluate where your money goes to support particular groups such as women and children.

As Maya said in her 2019 WPUK speech I attended in London, usually "when they say gender they mean sex".

You can see how PN styled it in the attached screenshot - the actual piece is titled: Maya Forstater’s ex-colleagues pen explosive letter urging bosses to ‘stand up for trans rights’

Archive of PN story so zero clicks given:

archive.is/VjpDS

I was so disappointed to learn that these are referring to the underwhelming threads, letter, and announcement we've already seen and archived from Sean Bartlett and Amanda Glassman.

I was struck by this (albeit not in the way PN intended) - see above for the conversation between Peter Daly and Adam Wagner plus helpful thread explainers from Audrey Ludwig.

[PN] Where does this leave employers? Equality and employment law require them to recognise and uphold the rights of all in the workplace.
Forstater’s speech and beliefs are protected – but so are the rights of trans people. And if speech crosses the line from an honestly held belief to bullying, attacks and intimidation, then the scales very obviously tip in favour of protecting the victim.

I very much hope that CGDev considers what a hostile environment they make for women who are prepared to assert sex-based rights and transparency around this. And that they consider what most people count as intimidation when it comes to being stripped of the right to participate in a project for which you were instrumental in obtaining the funding.

www.cgdev.org/publication/can-access-contraception-deliver-women’s-economic-empowerment-what-we-know

This is the CGD in 2016.

Presumably they no longer think this kind of analysis is important.