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

BC questions LE on how Pips explains that Pips has no desire to transition (despite Pips describing Pips as 'trans' elsewhere). BC reads out how Pips describes Pips's desire to 'dress up' as being purely about preferences in modes of dress on any particular day.

I am trying to get a login but have had 3 responses from 2 email addresses saying my request is blocked? Anyone else get this?

I know. We are so constricted in how we can phrase things here we sometimes forget that there is more of the mind bending, double think "out there" and this is a prime example.

Woman says human beings cannot change sex.

In what world should that cause anything more than a raised eyebrow and the thought "Why does she need to say that?"

What happens next Monday morning when LE etc wake up and ponder the tribunal, now all done and dusted? Do they think "What the fuck did I just do and say? Am I mad?" Or will they feel they fought the good fight?

Surely, you'd think, they are intelligent human beings. They KNOW humans cannot change sex and that all of this is just smoke and mirrors.

Then the horror sinks in, maybe they are intelligent human beings and actually believe this claptrap!

Ooh, this is painful. It looks like LE made loads of incorrect assumptions about Pips Bunce based upon LE's preconceptions about what trans is, and by ignoring what Bunce has put on the record.

Who's the bigot now?

Bravooooo Ben Cooper highlighting the offence women take when our sex is reduced to clothes!! Bravoooooo

I’m asking for a login

Sorry, too fast typing. I liked how Ben Cooper highlighted how it may be offensive for women when others do that.

Just to say - I had the same as @WearyLady; the log-in details arrived too late for the 0940 deadline, so I don’t feel able to join. I seem to remember someone saying yesterday that they just logged in partway through the day, though. Maybe I’ll do it for the start of the afternoon session.

LE is not offended by a man who sometimes wears women's clothes to work receiving an award for female businesspeople. 'He was awarded the award.'

LE does think MF's anger is offensive because Pips Bunce was awarded the award. BC 'doesn't follow'.

BC: you and your colleagues whole approach is revealed in your answer, in other words, you regard anything that differs from your views as being offensive is over the line of acceptability.

That is, they don't apply an objective standard.

LE says: The FT understood Pips Bunce was non-binary and therefore that is sufficient. It's not justified for someone to be angry about someone receiving an award based on their gender identity.

BC calls LE's views 'his prejudices'.

Is there anything transphobic / offensive about MF and others being angry that a man that does NOT identify as a woman accepting an award for women in business

Yes it's offensive

there it is. It is plain to see.

BC asks whether LE understood that MF believed that the important reason for recognising the distinction between GI and sex is to ensure that you can properly understand, talk about and apply policies that protect both.

Did he? No.

BC asks whether LE understood that conflating sex and GI is often protections for women that are undermined.

LE: I understood later.

LE is painting himself into a corner here by denying that anyone can be justified in being annoyed that Bunce got an award for women in banking.

LE is giving answer after answer indicating that his decision-making has been driven by his own prejudices.

BC describes how Pips Bunce climbed the career ladder before starting to cross-dress. Asks whether LE understood that MF regarded this as a particularly stark example of the sort of way in which protections for women may be undermined.

Next question: did LE not understand that if you believe as MF does, that it is the material reality of being a woman that has led to women being discriminated against, then it offensive to see a measure designed to redress some of that be awarded to someone who has had all of the privileges of being a man to climb the career ladder. Did LE understand the reasons for the offence and anger?

Ironically my post just now was hidden, because I used a word that is offensive here but ok in the US, as an example of US/UK language differences. Eg "scheme" usually means something nefarious in the US whereas it's neutral here. Was wondering if LE's offence at "cross-dressing" was similar.

BC: The reason you didn't understand or take the trouble to understand was that you were looking for offence on the claimant's part, and that was your prejudice you were bringing to bear?

LE: no.

LE still believes 'cross-dresser' is offensive.

Dear God, this is painful to read. I mean the responses. Obvs.

BC has just been able to say that LE in his application of trans activism has been driven by prejudice. This is allowed in a legal context but in many other places there would be consequences for BC saying that.

BC suggests that the fact that LE only skim-read the material MF gave him from Kathleen Stock suggests that he wasn't interested in understanding MF's perspective.

LE also didn't notice that Stock was a Philosophy prof. LE says he can't speak to how much credibility KS lends to this.

Did LE just say that he can ignore whatever academic work he wants although he would be willing to read something from the LSE?