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

Her facial expressions are like she just stepped in a big steaming poo when she says 'problematic'.

@tabbycatstripy

Her facial expressions are like she just stepped in a big steaming poo when she says 'problematic'.

These details are gold to those of us reading along when we should be working

Going through the blog sentence by sentence to ascertain what is actually offensive is genius. Making them respond to the actual meaning rather than their own special interpretation what was meant.

@Zeugma

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.

I think this too and surely anyone who uses this think tank must be like wtf, wether they agree with gi or gc doesn't matter, it's the fact a think tank doesn't allow or do any thinking. At all,,ever.

Most odd for a think tank , well I assume cos I'm not nearly clever enough to work in one.

Btw mnetters some fabulous and funny comments as per previous thread. I'm giggling a lot.

@nauticant

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

It's sacred caste stuff, again, isn't it. You can't have sex segregation, because some men don't want it.

She's going back to the misrepresentation that Maya thinks all tw are predators. It's lazy.

We don't think that all adults are paedophiles, but we still have to be subjected to DBS checks to be with children.

Honestly, a bloody think tank. I can't get over it.

BC just asked whether AG knew single sex spaces could exclude people of the opposite sex with a GRC... and she does.

To be fair I should have written "offensive and discriminatory".

@tabbycatstripy

BC: Do you understand that cis woman is offensive to many?

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

BC: Do you understand they don't believe they (women) identify as women?

AG: I don't understand this.

BC: Do you understand they find it offensive because they see the gender identity category of woman as being one of the ways in which women have been oppressed?

AG: I don't have knowledge of that.

BC:

I feel like these 3 Qs need pinned to the top of this board!

God, he's good!

She's on the ropes. AG just admitted to fully understanding the rationale and legal basis for single sex spaces. But she also says the discussion of such is 'alarmist'. Now discussing 'intact males'.

'The point the claimant is making is that if women and girls can't say with confidence, "you are a male person, please leave", then this impacts on safe spaces. Yes'?

Now talking about Karen White and the relevance of that case.

This is where it leads you .. defending Karen White.

AG saying you have to discuss single sex spaces in the abstract and not raise inconvenient matters like Karen White.

Imagine being AG now. Literally defending making it easier for sex offenders to access women and children, and stopping women talking about it.

In separate news, BC just said penis.

AG is now falling back on her own personal discomfort talking about penises.

She doesn't like the word penis does she.

I think she might be crying.

AG expresses her discomfort at referring to penises while discussing transwomen.

No. She does not want to talk about penises. Penises make her very uncomfortable. (But we all have to change in front of people with penises, and we are not allowed to be uncomfortable.)

Lol i do hope AG isn’t clutching her pearls

Can I just say I hate the phrase 'intact males'. I know it's said to be polite but I feel the circumstances call for a level of explicitness of what is being talked about.

Just catching up, bloody hell this one is slippery.
Sterling work tabby and co. Thank you, wims, top notch commentary.
(I note the absence of our usual berators)

At this point there are pearls over the floor and we're slipping and sliding on them.

Puritans

Oh good god. I need to be working but so wish I'd signed in to this. We have needed this for so long, this exposure, this questioning.