Maya Forstater hearing starts Monday

[MForstater]

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions .

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

Just wondering whether some XY people can grow a vulva as they can a cervix. Or is it just the cervix? If the latter than surely “vulva haver” is trans exclusionary and should be banned.

I think we need to ask David Lammy for clarification.

I've encountered "vulva people" in usage.

Can someone explain when it's vulva people and when vulva haver?

What's the difference in connotation?

I'm sure at one point vulva owner/vulva driver was used. (One careful owner.)

The thing is at this point, cue IW shouting that people of either sex might have vulvas and offering to show everyone theirs, as with the cervix IW insists that they have. There is no point to playing this game.

All this is ever about is 'don't upset male people by suggesting there's a group to which they can't belong', but you cannot talk about reality and facts and the female half of the human race without doing so because this is the reality like it or not. Male people are not female, and female biology matters to females and needs to be something females talk about. Trees are not fish. Gravity is a thing. And mental health is the capacity to deal with reality as it is.

I think we need to ask David Lammy for clarification.

Last seen legging it with a bunch of t-rexes in hot pursuit.

David Lammy will likely confirm that along with cervixes we dinosaurs should not be gatekeepers to vulva.

Women's rights...what, ah, umm...

A transwoman might be offended if thought of as male, and I'm offended if they're thought of as female.

Me too. But apparently we are not the group whose offense matters. I'm not sure if it doesn't matter because I have a vulva, a cervix or a uterus or because I don't and never did have a penis or just because I don't know my place.

Can someone please fill me in what the aim of this trial is (what does Maya want)?

The previous trial established her "beliefs are protected" so what is this one for?

This is the original employment tribunal she brought against her former employers, which was thrown out in 2019 by the first judge on the grounds that her belief wasn't protected. Now that the protected belief issue has rightly been resolved with the appeal, the tribunal can take place.

@MargaritaPie

Can someone please fill me in what the aim of this trial is (what does Maya want)?

The previous trial established her "beliefs are protected" so what is this one for?

Marg, if you didn't get as far as the link to the papers in the first post of this thread you're probably not going to be able to read enough for you to understand.

Get someone to dress up in a Mr Blobby costume and film a Tiktok explaining the basic facts.

The aim of the tribunal is to determine whether Maya was unlawfully sacked.

Can someone please fill me in what the aim of that post is (what does MargaritaPie want)?

Nauticant

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee
“A transwoman might be offended if thought of as male, and I'm offended if they're thought of as female.”

Me too. But apparently we are not the group whose offense matters. I'm not sure if it doesn't matter because I have a vulva, a cervix or a uterus or because I don't and never did have a penis or just because I don't know my place.

Maybe it’s because it’s not about you, it’s about them?

A same sex married couple might be offended if their marriage was considered by a Christian as not being a ‘real’ marriage. On the other hand, the Christian person might be offended by that same sex marriage being considered to be a real marriage.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

A rapist's view that his penis is female should be given greater weight than that of his victim, who thinks his penis is male?

To be blunt, if he introduces part of his body into that of a female, I think she's fucking entitled to say what she thinks of it.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

Not when it's a matter of biological reality that has implications for others.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

No. There are two people in the situation; it is not ever the job of one to enable the other at their own expense.

That equates to greater weight being given to the need of a person to stand on my foot than my need to say get off, you're hurting me.

We are not talking about neutral acts. Someone holding a belief you don't - if it bothers you, it's your problem, you don't have to be involved, you're upset just by the thought and sight of something you don't approve of. Someone requiring you to participate in their belief, to enable them in their belief against your own needs and equality? No. That's not a healthy relationship, it's not ok, we are not splitting society into the special people with the special rules and those who just get to shut up and provide those people with whatever is demanded without reciprocation.

Basic social contract.

Believe what you want about yourself. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Don't mess with others and expect them to indulge you. That just about covers it.

Well said, Artichokes.

[quote Helen8220]@Whatiswrongwithmyknee
“A transwoman might be offended if thought of as male, and I'm offended if they're thought of as female.”

Me too. But apparently we are not the group whose offense matters. I'm not sure if it doesn't matter because I have a vulva, a cervix or a uterus or because I don't and never did have a penis or just because I don't know my place.

Maybe it’s because it’s not about you, it’s about them?

A same sex married couple might be offended if their marriage was considered by a Christian as not being a ‘real’ marriage. On the other hand, the Christian person might be offended by that same sex marriage being considered to be a real marriage.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.[/quote]
Male is not an identity. Its a biological fact.

Also I don't identity as a cervix haver, person with vulva, or cis.

Why do you think it's ok to call me these things then?

Such hypocrisy its cringe-worthy.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

Amazing. You centre males (or is it the sacred word trans ) so much that you skip right past the context of rapist.

As far as I'm concerned, after someone has forced his penis into someone's vagina, anus or mouth (the legal definition of rape in the UK), we don't actually give much weight to his views on identity. What if he identified as a non-rapist? Lots of rapists do. I think the viewpoint of the victim has considerably greater weight there.

Go and be an apologist for rapists on reddit. It's a popular philosophy there. Perhaps you can post on Degrading Holes, a reddit sub that is only for cis women.

@DomesticatedZombie

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

A rapist's view that his penis is female should be given greater weight than that of his victim, who thinks his penis is male?

Well, quite.

I see someone on the delete-button didn't like the words rapist rights activism, but I'm at a loss to think what else this is.

Public Service Announcement:

If you find it distressing to be called a man, don't force your cock into any woman, man or child. If you want people to respect your feelings, do not psychologically and physically harm other people by raping them.

What next? Rapists having their victims prosecuted for assault because they struggled and bruised the rapist a bit?

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

That's fine if someone's belief doesn't encroach on anyone else's rights. Believing in god doesn't impact on atheists. Only demanding atheists profess belief in god and pray would be the equivalent.

If trans women happily enjoy their gender without impacting one woman's rights then we would all support them. It's the encroachment on single sex spaces and sports that causes problems.

You're asking us to pray against our

You claim us accepting TWAW does us no harm, but it clearly does and we claim the right to say that

We wish no trans women harm, we will fight to protect you and keep you safe, but TW do not belong in woman's prisons, woman's refuges, female showers, and woman's sports.

I think that, as a starting point, a person’s view of their own life or identity should be given greater weight than the view of someone else about it.

Oh come on. People who don't think there's anything wrong with, say, breaking particular laws because they feel they have special circumstances? We're not allowed to call them criminals if they don't feel guilty, or they feel they should be mitigated?

People who say "I'm not racist, but...." can't be called racist if they do racist things?

People can believe what they like about their own identities - loads of people think they're honest, or eat quietly - but no-one else should be compelled to deny reality if it conflicts with this.