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

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.

Loads of gay people, and - correct me if I'm wrong - Stonewall, at one point - argued against gay marriage for all sorts of reasons - it doesn't automatically mean you're homophobic.
Funnily enough, in this case, the debate was at least allowed to happen.

"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."

No, some people genuinely hold the belief that humans can change sex. As I found out in a discussion with the offspring recently. They are teenagers. School and social media have them thinking that "sex change" is literal.
I politely disagreed. They got very cross with me.

It's all kinds of stuff EmbarrassingHadrosaurus, the implication of a right not to be offended, work having to be a safe space away from views someone doesn't like, the importance of an ED&I outfit in the US stating positions that are highly contested and do not align with UK law, but, like others above have said this only goes one way. It's the one-way aspect that to me shows an attempt to disregard Maya's High Court favourable decision.

@nauticant

It's all kinds of stuff EmbarrassingHadrosaurus, the implication of a right not to be offended, work having to be a safe space away from views someone doesn't like, the importance of an ED&I outfit in the US stating positions that are highly contested and do not align with UK law, but, like others above have said this only goes one way. It's the one-way aspect that to me shows an attempt to disregard Maya's High Court favourable decision.

They do realise that they do not have the standing of Vatican City? They can't ultra vires the legislation and social mores that they wish the UK had?

What appears to be going on is that Olivia Dobbie (counsel for CGD) is gathering together lots of fragments to construct a version of the CGD workplace as one that Maya, by her continually banging on, offending people, and disregarding helpful advice to steer her back on the right path, had made so unpleasant that CGD were justified in getting rid of her. It seems to be taking a lot of work. I wonder what else they have?

I think she is also trying to provoke Maya to get shrill and angry (so as to make it seem that she is a difficult women and plausible that she would be impossible to work with)

What is really worrying is that sex differences are crucial in understanding development. - Girls access to education, early marriage etc etc. - By preventing Maya (or anyone else) talking about they are effectively preventing themselves doing their job

What is really worrying is that sex differences are crucial in understanding development. - Girls access to education, early marriage etc etc. - By preventing Maya (or anyone else) talking about they are effectively preventing themselves doing their job

Absolutely, Maya gave a presentation at a WPUK meeting soon after losing her job and she emphasised repeatedly that when these people say "gender" they mean sex. I think that in 2019 there was less obfuscation and you were actually allowed to mean sex when you said "gender", now it's got even worse and we have "61% of people have experienced shame about their periods" or whatever nonsense it was.

@drwitch

I think she is also trying to provoke Maya to get shrill and angry (so as to make it seem that she is a difficult women and plausible that she would be impossible to work with)

What is really worrying is that sex differences are crucial in understanding development. - Girls access to education, early marriage etc etc. - By preventing Maya (or anyone else) talking about they are effectively preventing themselves doing their job

How odd that the barrister is affecting to believe that HR wouldn't have a problem with somebody goading and full on interrogating a colleague in a workplace.

Even MNHQ would recognise a fully justified GF report.

Next up is examination of Maya Forstater by Ben Cooper QC to clarify matters raised in the cross-examination by CGD's QC. Apparently it's only going to take 10 minutes.

The clarifications of Ben Cooper QC were too subtle to me, except for the final question in which he found the statements by Pips Bunce in which they confirm that they "like to dress up", and going on about dresses and heels, ie they're a cross-dresser. Nice catch, especially since Olivia Dobbie (counsel for CGD) made such a meal over Maya Forstater being disrespectful by simply restating what Bunce themselves say.

However, I was pleased to see that a man (Ben Cooper QC) with such a splendid beard doesn't seem to be an active misogynist.

Well done Maya! You did amazingly

Bunce quite clearly refers to Bunce as someone who likes to dress up, and even Stonewall say cross-dressing comes under the trans umbrella. So clearly it's not 'cross-dresser' which is considered to be offensive. It's 'man' for a person who has declared themselves to sometimes be sometimes not a man. However that works,

They do realise that they do not have the standing of Vatican City? They can't ultra vires the legislation and social mores that they wish the UK had?

Apparently not. Reminds me of 1066 and All That where King John and the whole of the UK was excommunicated for not doing what Rome said, and no one was allowed to be born, or to die, to tell him the right time or stand him a drink or anything nice.

Let's all be absolutely clear: there is NO formulation of 'I don't believe in gender identity' that would not offend people who do, and who don't like it when other people don't. It is the core belief itself, not any specific expression of ideas additional to the core belief, that has brought about this situation.

However, I was pleased to see that a man (Ben Cooper QC) with such a splendid beard doesn't seem to be an active misogynist.

I remember Maya noting that a while back.

Maybe counsel could ask them that: how could MF have expressed her core beliefs, in the workplace and where relevant, without being regarded as so 'problematic' that she had to leave the organisation? What could she have actually said that would not have led to this situation?

Good luck Maya, I believe many more people are on your side than you know, they are just afraid to say so. Keep fighting!

@nauticant

It's all kinds of stuff EmbarrassingHadrosaurus, the implication of a right not to be offended, work having to be a safe space away from views someone doesn't like, the importance of an ED&I outfit in the US stating positions that are highly contested and do not align with UK law, but, like others above have said this only goes one way. It's the one-way aspect that to me shows an attempt to disregard Maya's High Court favourable decision.

It's analogous to the protected belief that life begins at conception. If I turn up and keep talking about how abortion is murder to a colleague with an unplanned pregnancy, I'd (hopefully) be out of the door by the end of the day. If I brought in a graphic leaflet and left it in the office I'd expect to get in trouble. If I campaigned for SPUC in my spare time and my twitter didn't mention my employer, legally there isn't much they could do about it - the EAT ruling around immutable sex being a protected belief covers this. When your public statements are easily linked to your employer - more of a grey area.

If MF wins, I'd suspect it would be on grounds of the employer not following proper processes rather than that a protected belief protects an employee from consequences of campaigning at work or on social media that is clearly linked to the employer. In particular, if they've effectively dismissed MF without a full investigation or assessment of reputational damage and are now coming up with valid justification only once they've been challenged.

I think there's a real push atm to make any reference to "male" in relation to "trans woman" problematic. The idea that trans women shouldn't be described in terms of them being male probably didn't even exist at the time that Maya was tweeting. Things have moved on considerably since then.

'It's analogous to the protected belief that life begins at conception. If I turn up and keep talking about how abortion is murder to a colleague with an unplanned pregnancy, I'd (hopefully) be out of the door by the end of the day.'

It is not. MF was asked to separate herself into working groups based on gender identity to discuss a policy she could only give her views on by talking about the difference between sex and gender.

She had a choice: pretend to believe in a declare herself to have a gender identity, or tell the truth. Then, pretend to have no issue with the work harassment policy, or point out how it didn't protect her.

Why should she not be able to discuss her protected beliefs in the workplace when they are relevant to what is happening in the workplace?

It's more directly comparable to a workplace having a policy to say everyone in the workplace has to be pro-life.

We seem to get drawn again and again into the argument that although employers must not discriminate against employees having gender critical views, there's no way in which these can be raised in the work place because some people will be offended. But those people can raise the opposing view because that aligns with the spirit of the age. This is a bad path to go down.

'We seem to get drawn again and again into the argument that although employers must not discriminate against employees having gender critical views, there's no way in which these can be raised in the work place because some people will be offended.'

Exactly. It's not protected if there is no way in which you can express it clearly, when it's relevant, without being fired.

I would absolutely not expect someone to lose their job for being pro-life. I would absolutely not expect someone to lose their job for being pro-choice. And as an employer, I would not put someone in a situation where they had to express a view on that, or lie.

Maya must be wishing to pull her hair out.

That was the highight of the day for me. But it was also worrying. When a QC is trying to present the gender identity ideology in court and simply cannot do so clearly and consistently, those observers having their critical thinking engaged must surely realise they're seeing a fundamental problem. But of course, even acknowledging the problem has to be avoided because to do so will cause offense to someone.

When seen, the unchallengeable nature of the ideology really ought to cause alarm to non-believers, especially those exercising their expertise in court.