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

nauticant - it's divorced from material reality. He's so far gone he doesn't understand that.

@nauticant

Think about what sex = gender identity means. It means that if a male person develops a "female gender identity" then this means that their sex changes to female, with nothing to do with medical procedures and nothing to do with any kind of gender recognition act. It means that if someone "really" has a "fluid gender identity" then over the course of time their actual sex can wander about following where their "gender identity" goes.

I've used quotation marks for "gender identity" because no one really seems to know what it's supposed to mean. My go at a definition would be the degree to which someone's personality has (it is claimed) feminine and/or masculine characteristics. With that being an absolute determinant of their sex.

The thing is, you run into big trouble as soon as you start to list what is thought of as masculine or feminine.

That's the key point isn't it? As soon as you discuss gender identity, no matter how polite and carefully considered you are, someone is going to get very offended, and, as CGD would have it, that offence is a reasonable basis on which to end your employment.

They seem to be a policy think tank who don't want people to think. Or maybe they want their employees to think but not say it, or write down, or express it in any way.

It really brings into question what is the purpose of a think tank that polices thought?

It's like a bakers that won't make bread. Of no use to anyone.

Well, you run into trouble as soon as you suggest that a physical attribute can change as a result of a metaphysical 'process' (a process that is itself without definition). It just doesn't make sense.

As PP said, another major problem with saying that sex and gender identity are one and the same thing, is how can anyone express the concept of transgenderism?

@tabbycatstripy

Well, you run into trouble as soon as you suggest that a physical attribute can change as a result of a metaphysical 'process' (a process that is itself without definition). It just doesn't make sense.

Like Uri Geller and his supposed powers of telekinesis. With his mind, he could bend metal and move objects. Aye, right.

It's all about as believable as that.

I suspect LE would deny the existence of the physical attribute. But in that case he is replacing sex with gender identity, not saying the two are indistinguishable. And if called upon to define GI, he wouldn't manage to do it. But BC can't focus on that because that's LE's protected belief.

'Aye, right.'

Quite.

They're a think tank which want everyone to think in the same way over one particular issue. In order to support diversity and inclusion. Other issues, for example about other protected characteristics, are open to robust debate. But pick the wrong subject to discuss and you face the sack.

Obviously because they are being diverse and inclusive, then they cannot be carrying out discrimination.

@nauticant

They're a think tank which want everyone to think in the same way over one particular issue. In order to support diversity and inclusion. Other issues, for example about other protected characteristics, are open to robust debate. But pick the wrong subject to discuss and you face the sack.

Obviously because they are being diverse and inclusive, then they cannot be carrying out discrimination.

Yes, it's the living embodiment of Animal Farm.

I mean, it's only one of the most famous dystopian books in the world.

And they can't see it!

'And they can't see it!'

LE is obviously a low-level Politburo official. He's one of the puppies, in Animal Farm terms. We haven't got to Squealer yet.

I wonder if CGD care much if they lose. Maybe they'll just blame it on some arcane peculiarities of British legal system while they're so far ahead of the game, or something.

Because Maya really deserves to win this.

I think they do. They took nearly a month to decide not to appeal the judgement on her beliefs.

@nauticant

That's the key point isn't it? As soon as you discuss gender identity, no matter how polite and carefully considered you are, someone is going to get very offended, and, as CGD would have it, that offence is a reasonable basis on which to end your employment.

However only those with ONE set of views will have their offended feelings recognised and the offendee's employment put at risk. Those with other views are expected to put up, shut up and deal.

The inequality here is the issue, and the fact that people's beliefs are being divided into the One True Faith and Heresy.

Gtf with that. Diversity and tolerance is a reciprocal thing. Either everyone gets to share and be equally diverse in belief, or no one does and the topic does not come into the workplace. Pick one.

I'll add too actually:

female people may be incredibly offended that they've been reduced in identity to a skirt, long hair and other stereotypes, that they no longer have access to a toilet on site, and that their speech is being compelled.

I've never yet heard of them though trying to punish the source of the offense by attempting to lose them their livelihood.

'However only those with ONE set of views will have their offended feelings recognised and the offendee's employment put at risk.'

A logical outcome if only one set of views in a particular debate is considered worthy of contemplation. But I think there are very few views that reach that standard in UK law.

I still can't get over the position being sex and gender identity are the same thing .

I wonder if they'd argue that gender equals sex, but sex doesn't equal gender? That sort of sums up the inherent illogicality to me.

Yes, we can all see the documents relating to the case.
Anything that "it seems" that isn't based on those documents will be left to individuals' interpretations and perhaps not wise to speculate on here about what you imagine a current tribunal might 'involve' or what people 'will claim'.

It looks like the judge is getting pissed off with Luke

@DisgustedofManchester

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

Gawd, you've got the name of the company wrong, can't spell and calling a protected belief 'anti-trans', is probably defamation, and yet you're simultaneously predicting the outcome of the case, the reason for the outcome, our reaction to the hypothetical reason for the outcome, and how a hypothetical outcome will affect her future, mythical employment! 🤣

Polish that crystal ball!!

And don't give up the day job (should you have one).

The discussion the complaints now starts. This should be interesting.

Complainant 1, who is not to be identified, is a member of the fundraising team. MF's tweets were "transphobic", "exclusionary", and "problematic for funders".

Complainant 1: it is transphobic to express the belief that a transwoman is not a woman, and expressed concerns about impact on funding.

LE agreed that C1's view could be expressed as "Someone who holds gender critical views should not be employed by CGD because these are transphobic views."