Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Maya Forstater hearing starts Monday

999 replies

MForstater · 06/03/2022 15:28

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 Hmm.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Artichokeleaves · 13/03/2022 11:57

I don’t see why my personal beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over another person’s, when it comes to their own identity and how they are referred to

I don't see why someone else's beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over mine when it comes to my own identity and how I am referred to.

This still separates society into the givers and the takers, it's not an equal and reciprocal relationship which is the problem.

How someone wants to define themselves is wholly up to them, it's none of my business until they make it my business. Someone making it my business without my willing consent needs to be prepared for me to make my own decisions, have my own views and to have my own boundaries, which include the possibility of me saying no.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/03/2022 11:58

Someone making it my business without my willing consent needs to be prepared for me to make my own decisions, have my own views and to have my own boundaries, which include the possibility of me saying no.

Exactly. This is the heart of the matter.

NecessaryScene · 13/03/2022 12:12

He is now in a long term relationship with a man, and identifies as gay. He acknowledged that he could equally have identified as bisexual.

Or indeed straight, right, under your rules? And you'd have been fine with that?

SamphiretheStickerist · 13/03/2022 12:13

@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?

😂🤣

Sorry, I'm only just catching up and this classic piece of fake naivety has made me splutter and wake up the dog.

That's rich, even for you Marg

Helleofabore · 13/03/2022 12:20

So according to Helen, people can simply identify as a label, where in fact they don’t fit the label, thereby changing the meaning of the label to suit themselves and all others that it effects should just STFU about it. Because they don’t believe that forcing changes to terms to accommodate them has any negative effects on others.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/03/2022 12:26

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Tomorrow it is Luke the HR guy from Washington DC (who also gave evidence in the preliminary hearing)

Some of us recall Luke Easley very well… When shown a picture of Rachel Dolezal and asked about those circumstances, Luke said 'she appears to be white' but if she chose to record herself as black 'in reality she's black'.

A statement which perpetuates racism through it's obfuscation of the actual real experiences of people who are black. A civilised society should condone such an appalling statement. We are not going to be able to tackle societal issues if we refuse to accept them. Neo-nazis often don't identify as racist. Is that the 'reality' then?
Helleofabore · 13/03/2022 12:28

To clarify.

Because they, people forcing tose changes, don’t believe that forcing changes to terms to accommodate them has any negative effects on others.

Not a personal ‘they’. A general they.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/03/2022 12:28

I don’t see why my personal beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over another person’s, when it comes to their own identity and how they are referred to

The clear solution to this is to stop pretending that sex is a matter of identity.

It's really very silly to pretend that this is just about 'how someone is referred to' isn't it? I don't mind if jack suddenly referred to as jill. That does not mean that jack/jill can reasonably take a place in a female-only literary short-list.

Terfydactyl · 13/03/2022 12:39

@tabbycatstripy

'It is offensive solely because the male person does not want to hear it.'

Yes. We are being expected to lie to protect the feelings of others and that is unethical and unjustifiable on every level.

It's also impossible, how can we know by simply looking at them that certain words must not be said in their presence. Without a conversation or previous knowledge of them.

And that conversation apparently cannot happen. Stuck between rock/hard place.
Of course you could I suppose never ever mention words like man/woman male/female or any pronouns ever just in case you offended a person.
Or maybe just stop talking and writing anything at all ever.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/03/2022 12:43

You're right Maya, I did like the opening submissions. Thoughts are with you tomorrow and thank you for standing up for women. You are awesome, totally awesome.

OldCrone · 13/03/2022 13:42

I don’t see why my personal beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over another person’s, when it comes to their own identity and how they are referred to, any more than my beliefs about what it means to be gay/straight/bisexual. So in the sphere of gender and sexuality, I refer to people in the way that reflects their identity.

It's not just about how they're referred to. It's about much more than that.

But let's start with the language. Do you think it's right that Maria MacLachlan was expected to refer to the person who assaulted her as 'she' in court? This is an example of what happens when you decide that a person has the right to identify as they wish regardless of its effect on other people.

But it's also about whether someone participates in sport according to their sex or their self-declared gender identity. Or about which prison they go to if they commit a crime. And so on. Every scenario you can think of with every possible reason for someone 'identifying' as they do. Is everyone allowed to identify as they wish, and should that identification always trump other people's perception and even reality?

You said that if you had realised we were discussing rapists, you wouldn't have said what you did. But if you insist that everyone's self declared identity trumps everyone else's perception, as well as reality itself, then rapists are included in the people you were referring to. If you exclude rapists from self-identification, who else do you exclude? Where do you draw the line?

Artichokeleaves · 13/03/2022 13:42

@Helleofabore

To clarify.

Because they, people forcing tose changes, don’t believe that forcing changes to terms to accommodate them has any negative effects on others.

Not a personal ‘they’. A general they.

Mmn.

#notyourmum
#notyouryouthworker
#codependencyisntanicejobforagirl

Terfydactyl · 13/03/2022 14:41

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

Fantastic, so I am all of the below and demand everyone respects my pronouns of majesty/highness.

Plus I am over the age of retirement so I claim my pension, I am also a parent to 6 under 6 and claim any benefit that parents get, I am also both a homeowner and I pay rent for my home so I can claim housing benefit.

Cant think of any more right now but between pension and child benefits and housing benefit I might just get through the next few years. Until this madness ends anyway.

WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles · 13/03/2022 17:28

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

And I think that fucking reality should be given the greatest weight.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/03/2022 18:06

I don’t see why my personal beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over another person’s, when it comes to their own identity and how they are referred to

I've been cogitating on this this afternoon. Thing is, by insisting that female/ women is an identity statement and not simply a statement of biological fact, trans ideologists are elevating their beliefs about sex and gender over the majority of the population. This statement is an unhelpful 'be nice' simplification.

YouCantTourniquetTheTaint · 13/03/2022 18:06

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 do not give a fuck how other people identify, they can identify however the fuck they wish. What I take issue with, is the expectation that when a man comes out as being a woman, that I must affirm that identity, and believe that he is a woman. Currently it isn't enough to call them she/her in conversation, I must actually believe they're a literal woman.

Currently we must as women accept and never question trans women in:
Women's DV shelters
Rape crisis centres
Women's prisons
Women's sports (see Lia Thomas)
Women's political groups
Female only hospital wards
Women's changing rooms
Women's toilets
Plus a thousand more women's only groups.

There must be gatekeeping and safeguarding to keep women and girls safe. Acception without question is harming vulnerable women and girls.

Not only that, the idea of gender itself is absolutely absurd, it's based on nothing but sexist, outdated stereotypes. The only way to be a woman is by being born female, anything after that is superficial and made up.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 13/03/2022 18:48

I’ll try to explain a bit more where I’m coming from.

[SNIP]

I also have a colleague who is a trans man. He looks and sounds like a man, and I suspect many people at work who don’t know he’s trans assume he’s a cis man. If I believed that the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ relate to sex rather than gender, and that a person with xx chromosomes can never be a man, I would believe he was wrong and that he was in fact a woman. However, I don’t see why my personal beliefs about sex and gender should take precedence over another person’s, when it comes to their own identity and how they are referred to, any more than my beliefs about what it means to be gay/straight/bisexual. So in the sphere of gender and sexuality, I refer to people in the way that reflects their identity.

We already know where you're coming from. You have an end outcome you are aiming at, and you are coming up with reasoning to get there. Telling us about the work colleague doesn't change what you are doing.

Now let's go for a topic a little less fraught.

The word vegetarian means someone who does not consume meat, poultry or fish. Some people call themselves "vegetarian" when they do eat fish. What you are arguing is that their beliefs should take precedence over mine inside my own head!

What I normally do in real life and the workplace, is simply ignore people eating fish while calling themselves vegetarians, unless they explicitly ask in some way for me to agree that they are vegetarians, or start trampling over my rights. The answer is no. I will not lie for them or you.

For example, if they use their identity as vegetarians to push for the subsidised work canteen to replace the current small selection of vegetarian options with seafood dishes, they will have pushed me to the discourtesy of telling them they are not vegetarians. I will need to do so in order to express my own needs. They will say it is rude of me to do so. I think it is rude to push for a menu change that will mean I and all other actual vegetatians will be excluded from the subsidised canteen!

They will hear statements they do not like from us actual vegetarians, and the fault for this will lie with them, the fish-eating pescetarians.

You cannot force me or expect me to see you as vegetarian, or anyone as a woman or a man when they are not. The best you can do is either fully deceive me or accept the social contract that everyone tolerates everyone else having different thoughts. I will keep to my side of the social contract as long no-one starts imposing their beliefs on me.

Another example might be Islam. I believe women who wear hijab shouldn't be discriminated against or excluded from public spaces, either directly or indirectly (note that many trans activists pursue campaigns that will indirectly exclude women of visible faith). However I don't believe any woman should feel obliged to cover her hair. I do not voice this to women who wear hijab because I think it is rude to do so. However, if you try to impose your beliefs on me and push me to agree that women should cover their hair, I will be loudly telling you about my beliefs. This is called the consequences of your own actions.

Again, no-one has the right to make me see them as the other sex than they are, either.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/03/2022 19:01

For example, if they use their identity as vegetarians to push for the subsidised work canteen to replace the current small selection of vegetarian options with seafood dishes, they will have pushed me to the discourtesy of telling them they are not vegetarians. I will need to do so in order to express my own needs. They will say it is rude of me to do so. I think it is rude to push for a menu change that will mean I and all other actual vegetatians will be excluded from the subsidised canteen!

They will hear statements they do not like from us actual vegetarians, and the fault for this will lie with them, the fish-eating pescetarians.

Good analogy!

nauticant · 13/03/2022 20:30

I'm looking forward to hearing Luke the HR guy from Washington DC tomorrow. It's a rare event to hear someone present gender identity ideology in the non-safe space of a UK legal court/tribunal where ideas are supposed to be open to challenge. But I would expect Ben Cooper to be treading particularly carefully.

Redshoeblueshoe · 13/03/2022 22:06

Yes Luke the HR guy should be fun !

nauticant · 13/03/2022 22:28

One reason I am interested is because on Friday the word of US-based DE&I outfits was presented as gospel, without challenge, and without any examination of whether the advice they provided had been prepared having regard to UK law. It would be interesting for that to be discussed.

Redshoeblueshoe · 13/03/2022 23:16

Nauticant you have just made me realise I didn't catch up with Friday afternoon. Were there any good highlights ?

sacredfeminina · 14/03/2022 00:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Datun · 14/03/2022 00:15

@sacredfeminina

Posie parker just blew up on twitter saying she has blocked Maya (check pic). Whats going on?
Is that Kellie Jay? I thought Twitter had banned her.
Enough4me · 14/03/2022 00:17

She thinks Maya deceived people?

Swipe left for the next trending thread