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

AG says these are people in their field and their experience with MF is also about CGD as a partner.

BC says the fact people disagree in a Twitter debate doesn't mean either party is offended or upset. Agree?

AG: NOt necessarily.

BC: Even when they disagree strongly? AG agrees.

BC: Even when there are emotive questions involved?

AG: Agree.

BC: In terms of these individuals, you infer that they were upset but you don't know. Correct?

AG: Yes.

BC points out nobody contacted CGD. AG erms. She says she thinks the fourth person was in touch with a colleague of hers and complained about it, but not formally.

BC: No evidence of that?

AG: No.

Going through some of the tweets individually.

I can barely wait to hear BC take on Nancy Kelley in this forensic way.

Nothing to do with the left, in the UK. Left wing politics get the blame all the time but as someone in a group of someone's who are all socialist and left wing in our politics, we abhor what TRAs who are responsible for this mess, believe. "The Left" are no more a homogenous group than "the right". Dangerous territory when we are all lumped together. USA HR practices do not "fit" with employment laeme in the UK. MfF was treated really badly and UK law was not applied hence these tribunals. No excuse from an international company.

When I google ‘Masood Ahmed’ the first thing that comes up is a fictional character from East Enders. Which seems kind of appropriate in the circumstances……

I liked the red hand, it’s cartoony, 1960s and irreverent- like the Pink Panther graphics or The Incredibles. The sneaky hand pinching something away while the owner is unaware, is a kind and gentle description of the actual situation. Where women who speak up about their rights are sent rape and death threats.

It’s hardly Tony Blair’s ‘Demon Eyes’ poster, is it? It’s not of any one person or even any one type of person. How very transphobic of anyone to pin it on a specific group. The whole point is that misogyny is ubiquitous. So much so, that we might not notice it until it’s too late and our rights have been taken away.

They never consider reputational damage the other way around do they?

I wouldn't work with a think tank that can't think and holds magical quasi- religious beliefs.

Nancy Kelley...! I'm hiring out a cinema.

They never consider reputational damage the other way around do they?

I wouldn't work with a think tank that can't think and holds magical quasi- religious beliefs.

Indeed.

I want it in IMAX

BC is going through some tweets with a view to making the point that MF's tweets were not universally regarded as offensive. People responded and engaged in the debate normally. And the tweets expressed her fundamental beliefs (which analogies and thought experiments).

1960s Pink Panther films is exactly what came to my mind Slothtoes.

BC points to a tweet where MF acknowledges sex diversity is not the only thing we care about, but a panel of men of different ages, races etc is still a manel.

If you read these tweets, they are all entirely serious and respectful, aren't they?

AG: Trying to work out which tweets he means.

AG is tired - she's having trouble mainitaining her focus now. I'd be doing the same by this stage of proceedings.

AG: Says it was all okay.

BC says MF is expressly saying that she recognises that TW experience discrimination. Her concern is for both groups.

AG: That's part of her argument, but what is the practical implication?

AG: That's part of her argument, but what is the practical implication?

We'll never know Amanda because you wouldn't allow the discussion and fired Maya instead of having it.

AG: Pointing out that someone disagrees with MF because she might offend a small group of people who are vulnerable.

BC: Yes, but the person doesn't say it's transphobic or offensive.

AG: She says it could be hurtful.

BC: She's not saying it's hurtful to her, she's saying it could be hurtful to TW.

AG: This is the discussion about panels?

BC: Yes. MF is not saying you shouldn't protect TW, she is saying specifically, manels is about women.

AG: MF is saying we should understand if a woman is biologically female.

BC: Again, MF says we can include all sorts of types of discrimination in the fight for rights, but no need to collapse categories. You understood from her blog that the argument is about a balance of rights?

AG: That's part of it.

BC: You can't sensibly say that MF said anything offensive or inappropriate here?

AG: I think parts of it are objectively hurtful.

@Pluvia

I can barely wait to hear BC take on Nancy Kelley in this forensic way.

OMG!

And Nicola Sturgeon.

AG saying inferences could be drawn from the language that someone is hurt or offended.

BC goes to another tweet.

Pluvia and Jackie, I don't disagree with your points (please do note the rest of my post, which I think makes my position clear); but I was just saying how the hand could be interpreted. It does make me think of 'scary old woman' type cartoon figures like Cruella de Vil and the Snow White witch/stepmother.

BC points out that one of the people AG relies on as being hurt or offended is still MF's friend and they have a good relationship.

@tabbycatstripy

Nancy Kelley...! I'm hiring out a cinema.

I know. Imagine!

AG looking at those tweets.

BC goes to mid-November. Series of messages between them. Complainant is complaining about about her treatment, and her friend is clearly sympathetic and friendly. So, if you had actually wanted to know the objective impact of MF's tweets, you could have asked her about this. Yes?

AG: Yes, it could have been done.

BC continuing with MF's exchange with this contact (Alice Evans). Tweet AG relies on is one where AE joins in in an exchange between MF and someone else, and we can see MF says 'I think male people are not women.' The next person says TWAW. You have diametrically opposed positions. Then Alice Evans offers 'a third way' and MF doesn't agree with it. Alice Evans calls MF's tweet unhelpful, but it doesn't suggest she finds it offensive or discriminatory.

AG says these are people on Twitter and part of the CGD network and disagree with the way MF was expressing her view.

BC: What you say is that you think AE was objecting to the claimant's reductionist POV (that sex is biological).

AG: That, and a long stream of tweets on something else...

BC: But these questions are about the tweets you rely on. You say they demonstrate AE thinks MF is being reductionist, but she doesn't say that. AE's contribution is to the central debate about what is a woman, and says she thinks defining a woman isn't helpful. But one can take various views on that. It doesn't suggest she thinks MF is being pejorative or that AE is personally offended or upset.