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

Thanks to tabby for all that transcribing.
This comment from someone above is good:-

"OB can talk about Christianity, discuss his atheism, his vasectomy and circumcision as CSA, but those weren't disruptive? Why is MF's set of beliefs so uniquely disruptive that it couldn't be expressed in a workplace and hope to have mutual respect and smooth running."

It goes to an interesting issue - if a group of people are upset by XYZ even if most people are not when should the law stop them being upset. Same with our breach of the peace law - if swimming naked in an isolated river does not annoy anyone it is not breach of the peace but do it amongst a group of people who hate nudity and exactly the same action can amount to a breach of the peace when in another situation it does not. To what extent do we have to consider the special sensitivities of others

If it upsets a Christian or Muslim to hear -" there is no God" should you not even respectively be allowed to say there is no God. That women may not be able to state facts - such as what is biological sex and who is a woman (particularly in a think tank for heaven's sake) because that might upset some people at work would be dreadful in my view.

But then again, in his witness statement, MP says that by the time the QI report had been finalised, it was clear to him that MF's tweets did represent a reputational risk, 'both because of the tone and the fact that they were heterodox to CGD's position.'

Has he just blown them out of the water here?

Some things are genuine errors - AG including Maya on an email chain intended for employees is a genuine error. But her acknowledgement of that at the time suggests that everyone was strongly expecting her to become an employee.

Saying that it was an error to include Maya as an employee on the Gates grant application is simply not tenable. It's not a typo. They included a breakdown of costs, including costs related to employing Maya (I presume this is National insurance / pension contributions?). They wouldn't do that for a contractor position. And it was a huge important grant for them - they would have checked everything rigourously.

I'm also not impressed with the "it's a long process" argument. Sure, hiring is a long process generally. But if you are considering possibly hiring someone and then you don't, there's usually a reason (didn't get the grant needed for example, or operational costs make hiring more personnel unfeasible). If the reason is because you didn't approve of someone's protected belief, surely the process can be as long as you like but it's still discrimination.

The trans religion is different from mainstream religions.

For most modern mainstream religions, personal belief is sufficient.

You do have missionaries who want to spread that belief to others, but they're still spreading "personal" belief.

Like-minded believers gather together, but they realise they can't expect everyone to believe.

For trans, It's not sufficient that YOU believe something about yourself, you require the people around you to believe something about you. Or, at least, not do anything incompatible with such a thing - people must not break the "immersive fiction". The belief seems to be fragile and incapable of standing on its own.

Basically, such a religion is not compatible with a secular "live and let live" society.

Again, she 'refused to see how her language was seen by CGD as exclusionary...' in his witness statement.

They wouldn't tell her. They specifically set out not to tell her, or to explain to her how she could express her beliefs - in or out of work - without being 'offensive and exclusionary.'

That is because they believed (or agreed, by consensus) that they were those things in essence, not in expression.

'She did talk about genitalia to a QI consultant...'

Yes. And OB talked about genitalia to her. So...

This is incredible.

Wouldn't most of us, if we were in Maya's position, have just shut up, and started looking for a new employer?

My respect for her was already huge. Now it's hitting the outer reaches of the universe

I think that once Maya had engaged in the gender debate, the culture within the staff of CGD was so hostile to her beliefs that had she then shut up, they would have gone for her in any case.

Maybe a conspicuous act of public recantation, a proper sackcloth and ashes job, saying that she had fully embraced the gender identity ideology, might have saved her job.

Just who does do the editing, scrutiny, and fact-checking for this organisation

Honestly if I was ever in the market for a think tank, I'm pretty sure I would avoid this one. It appears to employ actual dunces.

I'm never going to be in the market for a think tank, but if I was.

The general gist I've got from what they've said is either:
It's an error
I don't know
It's offensive

Missed anything?

They're allowed to hold those vile views but not to express them.

@tabbycatstripy

'She did talk about genitalia to a QI consultant...'

Yes. And OB talked about genitalia to her. So...

Indeed. OB talked about his own by virtue of publicly announcing his vasectomy and his thoughts on the wisdom of that. OB must inherently have discussed genitalia in airing his position that circumcision is CSA.

Yes, when Maya won her case that protected her view, I seem to remember social media being alive with transactivists determined that the expression of that view was not included in the judgment.

Which, as BC pointed out, does beg the question in that case, as to what kind of expression is acceptable.

And absolutely risible that the attempts to describe an acceptable expression involved adherence to the ideology that she disagrees with in the first place!

I'll never stop being shocked how supposedly intelligent people can get involved in this nonsense.

As someone who has submitted grant applications on a much smaller scale I am gobsmacked at the idea you would or could include someone's employment costs in error.

The issue of who is female comes up so often it is not one that is easy to exclude from the work place. Eg most people in professions are told or used to be to ensure the client never knows what way you vote nor ideally your religion either as knowing you vote Labour or Tory might alienate half the client base so better they have no idea. So the concept that you keep your personal life away from work as that makes for more harmony at work and stops big fights between colleagues is not necessarily a bad practice. However issues such as will this grant go to women or how do we keep women safe or even in the documents I generate at work am I allowed to us "she or he" because our sex is so relevant means leaving that issue behind at work is not feasible.

If you work in an office with 90% staff who are fundamentalists of one religion and you are an atheist it may be best not to go on about "there is no God" but how far are we supposedly to go not to say things that other people find offensive? The fact that women have xx chromosomes and English law only allows you to change gender if you go through a process (thankfully Mrs May did not change that existing law), is a fact. If others find it offensive the law has not been changed to reflect their views or they hate the fact science defines sex and the law protects "sex discrimination" then that is just tough for colleagues of people with different views. Perhaps provide a punch bag or crying room where those upset by the views of others at work can go and cry rather than not hire or sack people who have a view some others at work do not like. It is not even in some work places easy to say you vote in a way others do not. We should instead want a UK where people can have all kinds of different views.

yes @dolorsit this is completely implausible as you would need to rationalise why all the people on the project had the status they had.

@MrsSteveMcDonald

The general gist I've got from what they've said is either: It's an error I don't know It's offensive

Missed anything?

Don't mention penises. Unless you've got one. Then we'll be a bit uncomfortable but you can keep your job.

@dolorsit

As someone who has submitted grant applications on a much smaller scale I am gobsmacked at the idea you would or could include someone's employment costs in error.

If the person being included in the costs wasn't already au fait with the project, and they had planned on someone else, wouldn't that costing need to include handover or training costs not just the wages plus on costs?

I used to do grant applications and the costs had to be quite carefully estimated and accounted for.

I can't help imagining the "amplification technique" meeting as three women just intoning "trans women are women, trans women are women, trans women are women" for an hour.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I can't help imagining the "amplification technique" meeting as three women just intoning "trans women are women, trans women are women, trans women are women" for an hour.

Who comes up with these absolute bullshit corporate wankery phrases?!

I did laugh when they said there was no issues when discussing Brexit. I can only see one reason for that - they must have all felt the same way.

For an organisation deeply committed to the principles of independence, transparency, and accountability there appears to be quite a bit of opacity and evading accountability going on in the tribunal. They could just admit that MF’s views were unacceptable to them and agree to pay her compensation. Wouldn’t that be more aligned with their values of being transparent and accountable?

@MrsSteveMcDonald

The general gist I've got from what they've said is either: It's an error I don't know It's offensive

Missed anything?

This is very complicated and philosophical

This ties my mind in knots

I’m confused

The tone was so awful I averted my gaze from the discussion itself.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I can't help imagining the "amplification technique" meeting as three women just intoning "trans women are women, trans women are women, trans women are women" for an hour.

That's sounding like Macbeth's witches.

I found a lot of today quite unsettling as to what senior personnel will do, and the absurdities they're content to utter, when acting as witnesses in a tribunal such as this.