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

really wish BC would ask LE if he would include transmen in his dating pool....

LE might include BC in his dating pool... Imagine if these two go out for a bite to eat after the session. BC would order a hamburger and LE would find that offensive. BC would ask whether LE was hungry and LE would say he didn't know.

Seriously, I can’t see how LE actually makes it out of the house in the morning. It must be agony trying to exist in a world where practically everything is offensive.

I've mentioned it before, but using the example of being against gay marriage as being homophobic isn't quite right. Gay people on here have argued against gay marraige for political reasons. LE would be prejudiced to assume it's necessarily homophobic (although often is!)

LE: I'm gay too, if someone brought in leaflet saying "vote against gay marriage" I'd object

I’m struck that LE could not see how offensive it is for women to see Pips Bunce given a woman in business award. He must think that a ‘woman only’ category is just a quaint custom rather than a way of helping the half of the human race who have been discriminated against all the way to the top, get recognition.

Lots of people are joining as observers part way through. As long as the reporting restrictions regarding certain individuals are observed which Maya set out clearly on this thread it does not seem to be an issue.

It really is just religious thinking isn't it.
No basis in reality ✔️ Self contradicting ✔️ Treats science like heresy ✔️ Compulsory missionary work ✔️ Requires blind obedience ✔️

But how else can you make "being universally treated as something you're not" a right for someone?

That's what they've done, and this inevitably follows.

I'm intrigued to know the word! Can you give a synonym? Or general area. On the language of racial issues America pushes the new language and we are a bit behind. On disability issues America seems behind us on the language, and common words sound old fashioned here.

@Manderleyagain here it's a derogatory term for people that Scope help. In the US it means you're a clumsy klutz.
There are loads of nuances you wouldn't necessarily know unless told - e.g. 'Uppity' has racial connotations in the US but here it's more about class. That probably applies to a lot of things!

@AlwaysTawnyOwl

I’m struck that LE could not see how offensive it is for women to see Pips Bunce given a woman in business award. He must think that a ‘woman only’ category is just a quaint custom rather than a way of helping the half of the human race who have been discriminated against all the way to the top, get recognition.

This is the scariest bit for an HR person who persumably has covered diversity issues in his training. He has been an HR person for decade(s) and it is also just dawned on him that women might be discriminated against

@Awkwardy

Luke Easley-Misled, apparently

Excellent 🤣🤣

We're back.

Maybe LE's ordeal will be over soon...

BC: Email from EM (Ellen McKenzie). It kicked off all the processes over the next few months.

LE: No, it didn't kick them off.

BC: EM expresses a clear negative view about renewal.

LE: He doesn't see that she takes a position in the email but he recalls EM having concerns.

BC: LE had conversations with EM where she was 'disconcerted' by MF's tweets.

LE: Yes.

BC: Her disconcertion was about the substance of MF's beliefs, not the expression.

LE: doesn't recall but she shared some of concerns held by others.

BC: EM still employed by CGD?

LE: Yes.

BC: Senior role?

LE: CFO

@OvaHere

Last night I saw a tweet someone made about the case that sums it up well.

It really is just religious thinking isn't it.
No basis in reality ✔️ Self contradicting ✔️ Treats science like heresy ✔️ Compulsory missionary work ✔️ Requires blind obedience ✔️

See also Lifton's 8 Criteria for Thought Reform.

BC: EM says she thinks there should be a robust discussion. BC says it's a negative position.

LE: Not clear to me.

BC: EM was against renewal of the fellowship from the start.

LE: She certainly was by the time this conversation happened.

BC: EM says she suspects there would be a staff backlash. There are only two possibilities - this is an assumption, or she has been having discussions with staff.

LE: Those are possible.

BC: You are careful to say it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss this with staff. Do you agree?

LE doesn't follow. BC clarifies.

LE says this doesn't ring a bell in those words.

BC: Do you agree it wouldn't be appropriate to talk about this with other staff in relation to MF's views?

LE: Doesn't seem wholly inappropriate to him.

BC: EM isn't here to give the basis for her comments. You can't tell us that there was a substantive basis?

LE: No.

BC: All we know is that the people who had complained continued to work with the claimant professionally?

LE: Yes.

BC says LE said in an email that MF's response was indicative of the risk she posed in the workplace in relation to misgendering and humiliating transpeople

There’s so much to analyse here, but this from upthread particularly caught my eye.

There is absolutely no reason in the world to assume that Maya or any other gender critical woman is incapable of being professional and polite to all colleagues, regardless of the difference of opinion between them. It’s absolutely mystifying to me that someone who works in HR can’t see what a minefield they’re opening up there!

It is outrageously misogynistic and discriminatory to take this approach. You can’t put a fag paper between this and some tiktoker wailing that anyone who disagrees about gender identity wants them dead.

We’re back again to the religious parallels. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t make me uniquely dangerous to religious people being safe from discrimination at work.

Careful Sophocles not sure you can say 'fag' on here under the circs

BC: Email from LE saying they should be prepared to discuss the rationale with staff because other staff will demand this. Is this an untested assumption on your part?

LE: Saying they should have been able to articulate.

BC: That isn't what you're saying. YOu're saying staff would demand they explain the decision to renew. We have just been to the responses of the complainant and they seemed satisfied with what you had agreed to do before. They approved. Yes?

LE: Yes but in claimant 1's feedback form I recall them saying that they didn't see how the affiliation could continue.

BC: That is for later. I'm asking about this email. It was an untested assumption at this point?

LE: By that point there was a general consensus that there was a growing body of staff who were uncomfortable.

BC: Growing body of staff?

LE: Sure.

BC: WHat you're not telling us is that there was lots of discussion in the Washington office about this? How could you say growing body of staff? It was four complaints.

LE: Got an indication from Mark Plant that there would be staff backlash in London.

BC: We can ask him that. Your sense of a growing body of staff must be based on discussion happening, mustn't it?

LE: It was a general sense. I don't recall a wide range of discussion. But I knew, for example claimant 4 had indicated they would like to talk about it but hadn't come by. I knew members of the (?) team had talked about it. They hadn't come to me but I knew there were others.

BC: You inferred this but you didn't know?

LE: correct

BC: I thought you couldn't remember when claimant 4 came?

LE: I knew it was more than a couple of days.

BC: The effect of what you're saying is that we can't rehire someone if people are offended?

LE: No. I'm saying if there is a decision to renew we need to be able to explain it.

BC: You do understand that belief is a protected characteristic?

LE: I understand that now.

BC: You didn't understand it then?

LE: I don't recall.

LE: I didn't understand that belief was protected under UK law at the time I was involved in the decision-making.

LE: By that point there was a general consensus that there was a growing body of staff who were uncomfortable.

You can imagine this whole exchange going down a few decades ago about employing an out homosexual...

BC: You would rightly, if a member of staff or body, came to you and said 'we are offended by colleague X kissing goodbye to a male colleague' regard that as unacceptable?

LE: The complaint or the kissing?

BC: The complaint.

LE: People are entitled to complain about anything.

BC: But you would agree that you on behalf of the employer that you would not regard it as proper to act on offence if that offence is based on prejudice?

LE: I didn't think it was based on prejudice.

BC: Not my question. Do we agree on the underlying principle? You wouldn't regard it as acceptable for CGD to act on complaints simply because there were lots of them taking offence?

LE: I agree.

BC: So you needed to understand what the concerns were if you were going to act on them?

@Masdintle

Careful Sophocles not sure you can say 'fag' on here under the circs

I may have chosen the word mischievously

LE: I would need to understand them.

BC: Carefully.

LE: Yes.

BC: You also need to take trouble to understand the context of the staff who are raising concerns, so, is this concern by a small group of staff or is it a widespread concern shared by most of the people in the office etc.?

LE: Yes. I understand I didn't have this information at the time but it's clear now that there were people who were upset.

The list of attendees to the teleconference is certainly growing. Quite a few recognisable names in there.