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

Ooh, this is another painful section. LE is being forced by his ideological beliefs to play down the risk men present to women by taking advantage of a situation they can exploit.

Sterling work, tabby

To be fair to LE, there’s no way for him to make sense, because the proposition he has to go to bat for doesn’t make sense.

It does mean you end up going to bat in defence of predatory men, though, which I wonder if he is getting, yet?

LE: I don't know. Are you implying men are going to dress up as women? I don't find that credible.

This is the thing you've been defending for several days in a tribunal, Luke.

LE: Don't know.
BC: you don't know?!
LE: Nobody would dress up as a woman
BC: You are saying nobody would?
LE: It's fearmongering

BC: What you do when you frame as fearmongering is you are ignoring what MF and those with her views are actually saying, and are bringing your prejuduces to bear.

LE: No.

@nauticant

BC: do you know that most transwomen are intact males?

LE: I don't know. I don't know the statistics.

Ooof, said in Open Court, well done BC.

It's going to be very interesting when Olivia Dobbie (who's not a QC, I mistakenly wrote that way upthread) takes her turn and examines LE to turn the past one and and half days into a narrative that makes perfect sense and demonstrates decision-making that was completely open minded and thorough.

I'm beginning to feel almost sorry for Luke. He really is woefully underprepared for this, and seems to have an indefensible position.

Whatever happens, the sunlight is fantastic.

I have had a look at the syllabus from colorado state (where LE did his ug) on HR - I am that sad - there does not appear to be anything on diversity, discrimination and the like. - Actually quite shocking and explains a lot, he is not equipped to understand the nuances and just has to accept what the consultants tell him

BC is phenomenally good. It's all the arguments picked apart in a way we so rarely see, because politicians and activists always wriggle away from the scrutiny. Such a relief to see it laid bare and properly examined.

tabbycatstripy is also phenomenally good. It's so hard to listen and type so coherently - I've tried and just can't do it!

So what is Pip Bunce doing if not dressing up as a woman? The whole thing is jibber jabber, as always.

His position is if a man says he's a woman, he is one.

No questions asked, no challenges made, no implications analysed, no different opinion accepted.

The end.

The people who recognised this is as a male supremacist movement, right at the beginning, were spot-on.

Yes, a big thank you to all you wonderful women who are transcribing this. It's invaluable. It's like sitting through the most intense thriller ever.

BC really hammered it home

BC: Even if it was, it's about men. Not transwomen. Please read the actual words.
LE: She goes on to say -
BC: And she has just said what I have read. Must read the whole thing. Her "however" introduces predatory men. Men.

Thank you for transcribing this ❤️

@OvaHere

LE: I don't know. Are you implying men are going to dress up as women? I don't find that credible.

This is the thing you've been defending for several days in a tribunal, Luke.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I'm beginning to feel almost sorry for Luke. He really is woefully underprepared for this, and seems to have an indefensible position.

I feel very sorry for Luke, while also enjoying all of this immensely.

BC: you say you said you would have prob supporting renewal bcs of your mandate as HR to secure safe and respectful working environment for all. And you mention risk of misgendering.
LE: yes
BC: This presupposes claimaints views would damage that
LE: More about actions
BC: Why mention misgendering, MF had told you she would not.
LE: Didn't feel sure that was 100% sure
BC: But unless you are claiming she lied, you are saying that the "misgendering" consisted only of her view that TW are not women?
LE: there was risk
BC: I think we have understood as much as we can here

Goodness me - I almost want to shout “Ben he’s dead, you can stop now!!!”

LE is woefully uninformed about something he professes to think is so important isn’t he

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

it's really noticeable how Maya just explaining what her views are is seen by Luke Easley as trying to persuade him

maybe it's because her views are pretty persuasive?

maybe the only to continue to believe that if a man believes he's a woman then he is one is to never listen to any counter arguments?

the 'la la la not listening' approach to deciding what's right

I thought this too. Maya had to be absolutely silenced, because anyone hearing her argument would probably start thinking and further, agreeing.

BC: We see suggestion from MA - do factfinding as if investigation in line with DEI policy
LE: DEI = diversity equity inclusion
BC: This was an investigation effectively
LE: No wrong term.
BC: Agree "establish facts"?
LE: [ pause ] was about preserving evidence
BC: not trying to trip you up. Pulling together what you already have is not the same as establishing the facts. Was it about establishing the facts.
LE: Um yes
BC: Do you agree purpose was to enable SPG to proceed on informed basis
LE: yes
BC: do you agree that at least one purpose of enabling SPG to proceed on informed basis was in order to enable a decision about whether MF had done things that were inappropriate offensive & discrimnatory?
LE: yes agree
BC: As a matter of basic fairness the claiminant needed to be part of that process.
LE: She should have ability to respond yes
BC: She should see evidence of what complained of
LE: I felt she already had had it
LE: She had responded to my email, she had responded to QI report
BC: No. so far the only thing she had had chance to respond to was email for you, which she had done.
LE: yes.

LE [warns his computer is failing to load bundle, he will need to use paper version]

BC: Your first step was to email 5 members of staff asking for their views of MF's tweets.
LE: yes
BC: Here is the email. You BCCd so none of the 5 could see names of other 4.
LE: yes
BC: you say you want broad perspective of view
LE: yes
BC: Laudable aim. You need broad range of views across Washington and London offices
LE: Yes
BC: but these 5 people are all known to you as having stated hostility to the claimant.
LE: But those were the people I knew had taken interest

BC: Why mention misgendering, MF had told you she would not.
LE: Didn't feel sure that was 100% sure

Oh LE. You've ticked almost all the others, you might as well tick this one

1. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

'...You need broad range of views across Washington and London offices
LE: Yes
BC: but these 5 people are all known to you as having stated hostility to the claimant.
LE: But those were the people I knew had taken interest'

Oof. 'All of those on the witchhunt seemed really keen to be there, m'lud'

BC: You could have asked claimant to say who had she talked to .
LE: I did not do that.
BC: KW is included here, why
LE: I knew she was aware of the issues but had not said views
BC: You were not interested in locating a range of voices that would support claimant. Only in views hostile to her.
LE: Could not canvass all staff
BC: Did Ellen Mackenzie suggest this course to you.
LE: Don't recall that happening. Think it was my idea.
BC: you got 1 response
LE: yes
BC: And that 1 response, C1, very clear she did not require confidentiality.
LE: Yes she says she'd be happy to share views internally and externally. Not sure exactly how confident.

BC: And C1 says she takes view it is inherently unacepttable and offensive to take view that TW are not women and that anyone that takes that view should not be allowed to do any work with or for the respondents.
LE: yes

Anytime you are back from your break, shout out @tabbycatstripy and I will cease and desist my c&p extravaganza just filling in.