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

@tabbycatstripy

Olivia Dobby hasn't accepted that Maya's beliefs have any protection whatsoever. Her argument is, 'But you could just have agreed not to express your [legally protected] belief in the workplace, and gone along with the "workplace culture" of forcing you to participate in and express a belief in gender identity.'

Sure, Olivia. That makes sense.

Switch it around.

The argument is that it should be perfectly ok that those women should be required to join in with participating and expressing a belief that they do not hold.

Do they believe it would be equally perfectly ok that TW should be required to join in with participating and expressing a belief that they are male, and should not be using their pronouns or using women's single sex spaces?

(And actually no women anywhere are saying this: they merely want freedom from participating themselves and to have single sex spaces: answers that work for all. It's only one side that wants enforced obedience.)

If it's fine to compel people to just go along with the workplace culture regardless of their feelings or beliefs, why is this ok for one group but not the other?

I am not so sure about that. Are there not other beliefs covered by protected characteristics of religion for example which many people would find unacceptable if expressed in the work place?

Yes, such as beliefs that sexual activity outside of marriage is acceptable, or that same-sex relations are permissible. There are people who would find those views unacceptable if expressed in the workplace. Yet they're expected to put up with it.

Or the view that women should not be entitled to single-sex sports, or female care after a rape. Many people find those views unacceptable. Yet somehow they can be expressed?

I don't think any here are demanding that those who support Lia Thomas or Mridul Wadwha be fired. At least I hope not - that would be hypocritical. We just want to be able to express our pro-women views with the same impunity that they can express their anti-women views.

And when it comes to laws, you have to be able to debate laws, otherwise you end up in a "it's illegal to disagree with this law" totalitarian deadlock.

That's why the "freedom of belief" is utterly vital as a balancing component in the Equality Act - to ensure that the rights (or privileges) of the groups in question remain open to democratic debate.

And the irony here of course is that Maya's in favour of upholding the Equality Act. It's the other side that are arguing against its same-sex provisions...

@Ulchabhan

Offended" cannot exist in isolation, it must exist in the context of holding gender critical beliefs being a protected characteristic as decided in the High Court

I am not so sure about that. Are there not other beliefs covered by protected characteristics of religion for example which many people would find unacceptable if expressed in the work place?
eg A person is entitled to believe that only sexual activity which takes place between a male and a female in the context of a marriage is acceptable, or that men are superior to women or that men can beat their wives because these are all beliefs covered by the protected characteristic of religion.

But if that person were to voice those beliefs at work that would be considered unacceptable.

Ulchabhan

The belief that men can beat their wives wouldn't meet the Grainger criteria. But yes, a person should be able to express their principled opposition to gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with that, providing it doesn't amount to harassment.

Thank you Maya for not backing down, for staying in the limelight when all around you want to turn out the lights, for speaking up when it would be easy to be silent. Thank you for being a wonderful role model. I salute you!

There's nothing wrong with that, providing it doesn't amount to harassment.

Another key point, and one I think made at the last case: that there are already measures perfectly capable of managing harassment.

I've often worked with male employees who are openly sexist and misogynist. I'd think most women have. There are the very slightly over the line jokes, which might make you think the joker is a twit who hasn't yet escaped the sixties. There are the lectures about how women think they can have it all and it was better when they stayed in their box, and feminists are reaping the rewards now for getting out of their box, and female brains just aren't up to it. There are the lectures all over the place about how a male's feelings and identity is of huge importance but female employees' faiths, feelings, identities, privacy, dignity, equality of access just really doesn't matter and is something they should get over (and is their job really, cos female.)

Someone being an unpleasant twit and a bore is not illegal. And goodness knows this all borders on harassment and women know very well that it's very difficult if not impossible to do anything to gently get the ethos of the workplace made a bit less tedious. (Although those same males will line up in droves making look at us breaking the bias silly hand signals on social media on IWD.)

It baffles me that women are on the back foot trying to reason that it is not mean and the same as vicious racism to say some females need single sex spaces and they don't want to participate in a belief they don't hold - but no one's questioning the harassment towards women in the removal of single sex spaces, control of language, demands and enforcement under threat, and expecting to freely be able to do the lecturing and share views that many females find highly offensive. I don't really see the difference between being instructed that sex doesn't exist, I am 'cis', I am evil for being homosexual and really must learn to let males get their needs met from my body because I can probably cope with it if I try, and my language is something someone else will control for me, and being told in detail that really I should be at home raising children and the problems of women today are that they were silly and got out of their box so deserve all they get.

Frankly the second kind of bore is a bit easier to take if anything!

@nauticant

OldCrone, as I remember the exchange, MF was saying that in a context of these matters having been discussed at work and that there had been a discussion of her having been at a "gender critical meeting", MF said "I have a leaflet, if anyone would be interested in looking at it I'll leave it here on the filing cabinet near my desk".

As usual, DisgustedofManchester will misrepresent in order to discredit. They really dislike the fact that this issue is being debated here.

Yes, there's more context if you scroll up from the tweet I linked to.

I have only read the tweets. I don't have any more information about what was said.

Really what we're edging towards is the 'unsafe' thing. That people must not be permitted to say things that make others feel 'unsafe'.

This however comes with several riders:

• There is no definition of 'unsafe'
• There is no justification for why this feeling is so very serious
• Only certain people get to have their feelings of unsafety recognised and protected and the criteria for this is also uncertain
• We're back to special rules for special people

But yes, a person should be able to express their principled opposition to gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with that, providing it doesn't amount to harassment.

They discussed this at Maya's appeal last year.

This is what Ben Cooper QC said during it:

Thinking about the way these kinds of conflicts play out. Take an example a bit removed from this case.

I'm a gay atheist. Suppose I have a colleague who thinks being gay is sinful. I find his belief very offensive. He might find my belief that his religion is little more than a fairy-tale offensive.

How does that work in the workplace? If every time he sees me he says I'm an abomination, or I keep asking him if he's seen unicorns recently, that's harassment.

If we're academics debating the existence of god or sexual morality, we must be entitled to refer to each other's individual protected characteristics even if the other person is upset.

That's particular case of a general rule that it is permissible to refer to beliefs where it is relevant.

People can't be expected to be too squeamish about what they talk about at work. So if the workplace is one where people do discuss controversial issues, that won't necessarily amount to discrimination or harassment.

May be harassment depending on the particular circumstances. You can't use a one size fits all rule.

So if someone with C's views deliberately uses pronouns other than those preferred by a trans colleague, that may amount to harassment. But not harassment if done respectfully in the context of a proper discussion.

Exactly. The reason these issues came up was not because MF insisted on 'bringing her views to work'. What appears (at least to me) to have happened was 1) she had beliefs she expressed outside the workplace and people at work brought that into the workplace because they conflicted with their beliefs and 2) when it was relevant because her workplace was expecting her to go against her beliefs, she was clear about her beliefs. That is not in any way the same as harassing people at work by walking up to them and forcing your beliefs on them.

They didn't let Maya go. They decided they didn't want her as a member of staff rather than just a contractor

If her witness statement is correct, she was expecting to be given a perm role from CGD as everyone inside and out was seemingly impressed by her niche tax work, inc OECD who were interested in subcontracting her through CGD even while all this was going on. She wrote part of the bid that won the Gates foundation grant and was originally mentioned in it if I recall correctly.

Allegedly because of her tweets etc she was then dropped as a potential perm employee but the plan was for her to continue in her visiting fellow role. They then dropped her from that because of this controversy and what appears to be pressure from American staff, but asked her to continue as a contractor, having humiliated her in front of her London colleagues where it seems she was quite popular. She was upset and said she would find that very hard, but didn't turn it down. They then let her go without discussing it further.

All from the witness statement published online. Apologies if I've got anything wrong.

@Ulchabhan

Offended" cannot exist in isolation, it must exist in the context of holding gender critical beliefs being a protected characteristic as decided in the High Court

I am not so sure about that. Are there not other beliefs covered by protected characteristics of religion for example which many people would find unacceptable if expressed in the work place?
eg A person is entitled to believe that only sexual activity which takes place between a male and a female in the context of a marriage is acceptable, or that men are superior to women or that men can beat their wives because these are all beliefs covered by the protected characteristic of religion.

But if that person were to voice those beliefs at work that would be considered unacceptable.

For me one of the problems is that trans ideology is deeply offensive to me for so many reasons including that it assumes I have a gender identity and it assumes areas of commonality between myself and other women which are not based on our shared biology or the oppression which goes along with that. But it is perfectly acceptable promote trans ideology at work. Homophobia is against the equalities act and assaulting a person, whether your wife or not, is illegal. It is neither illegal nor against the equalities act to suggest that only females should be in women's sports, women's prisons, women's toilets etc. I don't think this is a good comparison tbh.

The problem we have here is that workplaces have integrated a political philosophy into people's working environments, and pretended its precepts represent a legal and ethical default. They do not. These are contested issues.

YY, tabby.

Really what we're edging towards is the 'unsafe' thing. That people must not be permitted to say things that make others feel 'unsafe'.

In the stream there have been a number of occasions when Olivia Dobbie (counsel for CGD) has repeated as fact positions put forward by ED&I professionals in the US, for example one called Quantum Impact:

www.devex.com/organizations/quantum-impact-122578

It is neither illegal nor against the equalities act to suggest that only females should be in women's sports, women's prisons, women's toilets etc.

And in fact you can only make use of the single sex exemptions properly by doing so, however offended it makes people who don't meet the criteria. We shouldn't be put in a position where we can't articulate that we are advocating for our rights as women and girls. That is creating a hostile environment on the grounds of sex, IMO.

Interesting.

The lack of equity of consideration of impact is always front and centre though.

Does this enforced political philosophy create a hostile environment for some females?

Why yes. Yes it does.

This argues that this is justifiable, and the fault is with those female people, who are wrong for minding about being required to collude in their own oppression and exclusion.

And both OD and Quantum Impact entirely fail to consider that MF's beliefs are protected, not regarded as innately offensive (there's no such thing as innately offensive) and entirely in line with UK law. They are interrogating her as if their beliefs are facts.

They are interrogating her as if their beliefs are facts.

And that is the upside down of it.

I did smile at Olivia Dobbie (counsel for CGD) looking like she was going to explode in outrage* at the concept of it not being possible for a human to change sex.

• I assume this was simulated for the purposes of effect on the Tribunal members

I think she genuinely believes it. She's putting on an Oscar winning performance if she doesn't.

'Repeatedly asking for a space to air your views' - the horror.

Best of luck Maya! Really hope it goes your way

I've only sat through a half day of the tribunal but I'm disquieted at what the CGD QC would have forbidden to take place in the workplace of a think tank.

They are interrogating her as if their beliefs are facts.

It's always struck me, the contrast between the nominally liberal democracy of society as a whole, compared to the top-down dictatorship that operates within companies.

But, on the whole, it works. Or at least did.

Because the companies stayed out of politics. They didn't have "value systems" or "beliefs", or anything like that. They were secular spaces.

Now, that seems to have changed - we have companies with beliefs, trying to enforce them on staff. Which, given their structure, is effectively totalitarian.

This is a big problem.

And a reversal of the way it should be - the companies think they're permitted beliefs, but their staff are not. (Unless they happen to be the same as the company). And the companies themselves are, on the whole, increasingly monolithic in their beliefs, due to the huge corporate blob of EDI, ESG etc.

This is why Maya's case has been vital - it's a real test-case for the rights of the individual versus a company-enforced belief system.

And just means enforcing the laws we've already got. In principle, we should be protected from companies like this. It's just that this particular form of discrimination is relatively novel - novel enough that a lot of people don't even perceive it as discrimination, or exclusion, or intolerance.

@nauticant

I've only sat through a half day of the tribunal but I'm disquieted at what the CGD QC would have forbidden to take place in the workplace of a think tank.

Is it more sounding like a social re-education gulag?