Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

[Sophoclesthefox]

Forgive the presumption, @Mforstater, but you’re probably busy in the pub right now, or passing on all of the fan mail to you legal team so I’ve made a new thread to carry on the fascinating discussion.

Round up your cats, rabbits and weasels, and let’s go!

——————————————————————————————

From thread one, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

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 hmm.

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

@WinterTrees

Yes, I wondered if the assertion that Maya wasn't an employee was significant

That is a popular claim that hasn't proved true for Deliveroo in the UK, has it?

HMRC has successfully gone after IR35 on this numerous times.

It will be interesting to see what the full argument is in the UK context.

@Sillydoggy

Is it relevant to the case that they don't understand the arguments that they are assuming are offensive?

They've said they thought they understood it but are now saying they don't. LE deliberately chose not to read a Kathleen Stock piece in depth (he skimmed it) that MF sent him to explain her views.

LE described her trying to explain her views as "proselytizing" then had to admit many times over that he did not understand them.
AG clearly didn't understand either if she thought calling people "cis" would not be offensive to GC feminists.

They're not coming across as particularly intellectually curious, are they?

I think WeeBisom that when you get into the "grey areas" then deciding on whether a particular statement is offensive or not is decided simply on the basis of whether the person saying it is one of the faithful or a heretic.

@WeeBisom

AG can't even keep her own ideology straight. She says: " Gender and sex are different, and that is one way she could have said it." But then later there's this exchange: "BC:That sex is material and different to gender identity. Can she say that? AG: Yes, I think she did. I think it was in fact offensive to a number of people in DC."

What? So AG thinks sex and gender are different, and it's fine for Maya to say this.But when Maya said sex and gender are different, it was 'offensive' to a number of people in the office? But I thought saying sex and gender is different was offered as the least offensive thing Maya could have said! This woman doesn't know what she believes.

I questioned this upthread - i think AG was giving an example of what MF could've said - that sex and gender are different. But LE stated that the CGD position is that they are the same.... so she would've been going against that, unknowingly, obviously.

@Sillydoggy

Is it relevant to the case that they don't understand the arguments that they are assuming are offensive?

They don't seem to understand anything about anything.

It all reminds me of a comedian on youtube who does amusing skits based on "the first person to discover...". He's called Ryan George and if you watch a few of them you'll know what I mean.

They're not coming across as particularly intellectually curious, are they?

In some political systems, being intellectually curious could well get you a bullet in the back of the head.

They are a think tank who pride themselves on not thinking. And telling their employees what thoughts they are allowed to have.

They're not coming across as particularly intellectually curious, are they?

Excerpt from the Scopes Trial

[Mr. Bryan]: I have all the information I want to live by and to die by.
[Mr. Darrow]: And that’s all you are interested in?
[Mr. Bryan]: I am not looking for any more on religion.
[Mr. Darrow]: You don’t care how old the earth is, how old man is and how long the animals have been here?
[Mr. Bryan]: I am not so much interested in that.
[Mr. Darrow]: You have never made any investigation to find out?
[Mr. Bryan]: No, sir, I have never. . . .

Just seen that AG said this
No, but I understand cis means GI corresponds to biological sex at birth, and MF uses that.

So she must accept that GI and "biological sex at birth" are different things, otherwise how could they correspond or not correspond? I'd be investigating that as proof she doesn't really believe they are the same.

Judge having to intervene again to get AG to answer the question.

EJ Glennie is not a fan of evasion.

@JackieWeaversZoomAc

Nazanin is on a plane home now!!!! and BC is tearing up the concept of "cis women" in the tribunal

Confession. For a split second I thought 'Nazanin' was one of the upcoming CGD witnesses from Washington who'd given up and fled.... my mind is too full of this tribunal!

I am logged in and listening - this is fascinating! I have work to do today!

So far the order of the CGD witnesses has been going up the chain in seniority. I assume that's deliberate.

Yes, suspect so. Mahmood Ahmed made the decision in the end.

One of the most mind-blowing things about the past couple of days has been the paucity of intellectual capacity on display. There was no attempt to think, to try and understand the other viewpoint, to have any sort of open mind. And the refrain of 'it's too hard to understand'/'you're dealing in abstract arguments'/'I'm confused' has gone up several times.

It really doesn’t reflect well.

She's so annoying. Sorry not deep or intellectual, but she's so evasive.

I wonder which order they will get sacked in ?
After all not much employment protection in the US

It's imperative they don't do that, Zeugma. That is 'not accepting other people's realities'. That would lead them all to the conclusions of those who refuse to accept unevidenced claims as facts, and that is unacceptable.

She is a fan of the phrase 'that is one interpretation', when the answer is actually 'yes' isn't she!

Not only that zeugma but they deliberately and explicitly discouraged getting into discussion with Maya about it because she knows the subject area too well!

@bishophaha

Just seen that AG said this No, but I understand cis means GI corresponds to biological sex at birth, and MF uses that.

So she must accept that GI and "biological sex at birth" are different things, otherwise how could they correspond or not correspond? I'd be investigating that as proof she doesn't really believe they are the same.

Yes, I wish he would ask AG what she thinks gender identity is. And when she says your sense of whether you're a man or a woman, ask her what that is?

Let's hear how you have absolutely no hope of ever describing how a man thinks he's a woman without sounding like a 1950s stereotype adherent.

It's difficult to believe these people work for a think tank.

My impression of a think tank would include shit hot analysis, broad knowledge, incisive communication and a fearlessness to examine everything from science to culture.

Not a masterclass in evasion, fear and swivel eyed ideology based on a departure from reality.

AG views the argument that some men might exploit the new norm (of access to single sex spaces) is transphobic and discriminatory.

'Problematic' - what does it mean? Anyone?