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

@yourhairiswinterfire

Ben Cooper is an absolute women's right hero.

I can't wait to see him take on Stonewall for Allison!

Can you imagine him cross examining Nancy Kelley.

I am here for the cross-examination of Nancy Kelley and will have my typing fingers (and sick bucket) ready.

If I recall correctly, BC was arguing that to say that one cannot apply safeguarding to men, that group including transwomen, because to do so is transphobic, was directly comparable to say that one cannot apply safeguarding to men in general, because to do so is an attack on all men. Since the "all men" case is an MRA position, then isn't the "men including transwomen" case something akin to an MRA position, and if so, should LE really feel comfortable advancing it? At least, that's where BC was heading but I think he got diverted mid-way and didn't complete his argument.

And you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory - that would be an anti-feminist backlash -
LE: Don't understand
BC: you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory
LE: please re-ask
BC: Do you understand that saying "most crimes are committed by men" is not the same as saying "all men are predators"
LE: yes

The absolute state of this. The utter lack of understanding, or even the will to want to understand. If he posted this on FWR we'd all assume he was a troll.

Roger Allam to play Ben in the film.

A sincere thank you to all the entertaining posters here who are updating this thread. I'm following along while at work and stifling my giggles.

@bishophaha

*And you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory - that would be an anti-feminist backlash - LE: Don't understand BC: you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory LE: please re-ask BC: Do you understand that saying "most crimes are committed by men" is not the same as saying "all men are predators" LE: yes*

The absolute state of this. The utter lack of understanding, or even the will to want to understand. If he posted this on FWR we'd all assume he was a troll.

Yes.

Poor LE. I think he sounds like he could use a cup of tea and a wee sit down.

I keep interrupting my husband who's working in the next room to say 'you won't believe this!'.

Yes, one of the things that struck me most was how any articulation of Maya's argument was read as her "proselytising". There was absolutely no way for her to explain the legitimacy of her viewpoint, because that in itself compounded the original offence. That's the definitive of a witch-hunt, surely? If you don't defend yourself, you're guilty, if you do, you're even guiltier.

Also I am paranoid about not having muted myself, my phone won't let me check, so will someone post here if there's awful incessant solid-sounding sniffing? Bloody horrible cold...

Thinking about it, that shows the philosphical difference between the US and the UK, partly to do with the UK laws in this area being much more advanced while the capture of the liberal establishment in the US is more advanced.

LE's position is that if a man sincerely believes they are a woman, with nothing having changed other than their perception of themself, then it is transphobic not to actively confirm and validate this in all circumstances, without exceptions, and any expression of deviation from this confirmation and validation is transphobia. That includes any awareness of this being adverse for women, so that if there is an adverse outcome and a woman is harmed, this cannot be acknowledged.

Have LE and others travelled here for the ET or is it all remote and they are zooming in from whatever time zone they live in?

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

Yes, one of the things that struck me most was how any articulation of Maya's argument was read as her "proselytising". There was absolutely no way for her to explain the legitimacy of her viewpoint, because that in itself compounded the original offence. That's the definitive of a witch-hunt, surely? If you don't defend yourself, you're guilty, if you do, you're even guiltier.

Also I am paranoid about not having muted myself, my phone won't let me check, so will someone post here if there's awful incessant solid-sounding sniffing? Bloody horrible cold...

Agree. And also, there's no indication that so-called 'proselytising' (or just trying to persuade someone that you're right) would be regarded as an issue for nearly any other topic.

Still working through these, sorry...
Email from Quantum Impact with report - identifies version for claimant - says "it's vague, deliberately vague, because we shouldn't get into discussion with claimant because she knows her stuff really well"

Agree that this looks pathetic and also a really awful way to treat staff. Or any human.

Agree. And also, there's no indication that so-called 'proselytising' (or just trying to persuade someone that you're right) would be regarded as an issue for nearly any other topic.

I think the distinction is between approved and non-approved views. It's another of those irregular verbs.

They don't need to "proselytise" - they've got proper courses! Do you recall the snide comment (from QI?) about Maya not having been on a gender studies course?

"Proselytising" is for nasty, smelly non-corporate-approved ideas.

They do "training" or "educating" or "awareness".

Ova yes LE is over here.

To the pp who said Ben you can stop it now he's dead - that made my day

I think they're in the UK, Ova, even though they're testifying remotely.

I'm having issued getting onto the tribunal. I have a pin number but they didn't send the online link. I tried the telephone number given on my iphone but I have to put a £ sign after the pin number and iphones only give you the hash sign - am I missing something obvious?

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

Paraphilias in serial killers are an intensely studied subject, as are paraphilias in sexual predators. Have been for decades. Empirical evidence shows that transvestism is prominently featured amongst those paraphilias.

(And that's me ignoring for now the voyeurism cases right on my doorstep where in the same month the same local court heard three different cases involving three different men dressing up as women to enter women's spaces to film women and girls undressing.)

Does this guy live on the same planet as me?

I've been following the case and there is something that is confusing me.

It's my understanding that the case has had to go through several stages before this point.

The first stage was to demonstrate that Maya had indeed lost her job and met the criteria of "employed" so as to be able to use the protections against unfair dismissal - she won that hearing so could proceed to the next stage.

The next stage was to demonstrate that she has a belief that meets the criterion of "worthy of respect" so use the specific protection of freedom of belief. Initially lost that case but won on appeal so could then proceed with the hearing as to whether there was discrimination on the basis of belief.

Listening to the cross examine of Maya by the CGD counsel and the evidence of the HR guy it seems that they are using that Maya wasn't employed and her opinions are offensive as a defence. Its almost as if they are trying to rerun the previous hearings.

Would that normally be the case in an employment tribunal that has been through several stages?

I'd also agree with an earlier poster, this is very typical of an international organisation with a US home basis. The sheer inability to conceive that the rest of the world does not operate or have the same laws/culture as the US.

If they asked you to press "pound", they probably meant "hash". It's an Americanism for that symbol. (What it's doing in a UK court, I don't know though).

The (current MF) case is an Employment Tribunal, so won't be binding in any way on the AB hearing. Employment Appeal Tribunals do establish precedent i.e. MF's EAT case establishing that belief sex is immutable is protected in the same way as other religious/philosophical beliefs.

@NecessaryScene

If they asked you to press "pound", they probably meant "hash". It's an Americanism for that symbol. (What it's doing in a UK court, I don't know though).

No, I tried the hash sign but it doesn't work. It's so frustrating! I've emailed them again, to ask for working links. Thanks very much for your response though.

Here we go, Olivia Dobbie (counsel for CGD) is now going to repair what was done by Easley.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

I think they're in the UK, Ova, even though they're testifying remotely.

Thanks. I was wondering how the time difference would have worked.

Pterodactyl I'm not on the link, but I assume they would have all viewers automatically muted at their end.