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

@FacebookPhotos

On this, I don't think it's about office norms (although those seem to have differed between the US and UK offices). After all "it was normal in this office for men to comment on women's bodies" would not really be a defence against sexual harassment.

I disagree here, though I’m certainly not an expert. I think that office norms are relevant. Because to establish that Maya was treated unfavourably due to her beliefs there needs to be a comparator - someone who held different beliefs and expressed them at work, but didn’t face the same sanctions. Otherwise CGD could simply show that anyone expressing their beliefs in work would face the same sanction and then there’s no unfavourable treatment.

The sexual harassment comparison would work if a black person was fired for sexual harassment while the white people weren’t, because that indicates that a black person was treated unfavourably because of their race. The legality or acceptability of the “office norm” is irrelevant, it is the differences in treatment between the “offenders” which is important.

I don't agree with this comparison as it suggests MF did something wrong. More appropriate comparisons would be discussions about Israel's treatment of Palestine and Palestines treatment of Israel. You could have a genuine debate about the rights and wrongs of that with strongly held beliefs on both sides, some may be offended by the different view. If discussion is allowed and views allowed to be aired when differing views on gender religion are not allowed then that would be a fair comparison.

The example discussed about pro choice is a good one

Or about gay marriage and extreme Christian views

Ultimately it is outlawing gender atheism, because apparently it is mandatory to believe in gendered identifies

A certain actor is arguing the toss with Simon Myerson QC on twatter tonight. QC has just demanded a retraction of what the actor said by 9am tomorrow. Aidan Comerford seems to be joining in too. Cant see what he's saying, I'm blocked. Bonfire of the Halfwits. The day just gets better.

Melinda French Gates has a new non-profit that I believe has a focus on women and girls, in the US, called Pivotal. I just had a look at the website again and it looks more about people and families vs the women focused aspect I thought it had. I wonder what her perspective is on this

@Mollyollydolly

A certain actor is arguing the toss with Simon Myerson QC on twatter tonight. QC has just demanded a retraction of what the actor said by 9am tomorrow. Aidan Comerford seems to be joining in too. Cant see what he's saying, I'm blocked. Bonfire of the Halfwits. The day just gets better.

That is an interesting sidebranch to Sonia Sodha's thread:

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1503728847551881225

Thank you for all the incisive (and amusing) commentary Just caught up on everything here.

Have conveyed your appreciation to Ben!

The log in by 9:40 thing is just standard wording to tell people to get their IT issues sorted early.

If you have trouble getting a log in you can DM me.

That is an interesting sidebranch to Sonia Sodha's thread:

Not seen where Simon Myerson is involved, but reading that thread, it's fascinating that they don't see how mind-bogglingly totalitarian they are and confident that they should be in charge.

We should be able to say your beliefs/actions are immoral.
No-one should be able to say our belifef/actions are immoral.

@MForstater

Thank you for all the incisive (and amusing) commentary Just caught up on everything here.

Have conveyed your appreciation to Ben!

The log in by 9:40 thing is just standard wording to tell people to get their IT issues sorted early.

If you have trouble getting a log in you can DM me.

I'm out all say today but I'll be checking this thread when I can.

We are with you Maya!!

@MForstater

Thank you for all the incisive (and amusing) commentary Just caught up on everything here.

Have conveyed your appreciation to Ben!

The log in by 9:40 thing is just standard wording to tell people to get their IT issues sorted early.

If you have trouble getting a log in you can DM me.

Glad that Ben is feeling the love from the coven over here

Good luck for today, Maya. We’ve got your back ♥️

Woke up thinking about the graphs - that 'graphs of peoples genitals' were mocking or abusive. The reason that they were so uncomfortable is that they were forensic and incisive, inarguable. Are those in tweets in the packs that the tribunal looks at? - I just cant imagine anyone looking at those in good faith and thinking they were inappropriate.

If the graph was one of the ones with a bimodal distribution and Maya was calling it "nonsense on stilts" I strongly suspect that this hideously offensive graph was actually posted by a believer in gender identity.

Good luck Maya. Whatever happens with the ET outcome, you have changed the face of public discourse around gender ideology forever…not least because now we do actually have a public discourse in place of “no debate”.

Is not being asked questions by your own counsel not ever so slightly embarrassing? It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of your performance is it?

This is pretty standard. The witness statements are the witnesses’ evidence and the judges can read that. Cross examination is to test that evidence so takes more time. BC didn’t ask Maya loads of questions about her WS.

On the graph, did they think the point she was making was the the peaks looked like norks (and so couldn't be about penises)

(do people still say norks for bosoms on here?)

@InvisibleDragon

If the graph was one of the ones with a bimodal distribution and Maya was calling it "nonsense on stilts" I strongly suspect that this hideously offensive graph was actually posted by a believer in gender identity.

If I followed the proceedings correctly yesterday, yes, that’s right. It was posted on Twitter by someone called ScienceVet. Maya was indeed commenting on the graph. She didn’t post it.

Maya retweeted the thread with the graph:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1503779646051127297

The original was indeed nonsense on stilts - this thread:

twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184

From AG's response, do I gather that she was also offended at the reference to humans being primates?

Is the US really back there?

Turns out that original ScienceVet graph is notorious far and wide for its dunderheadedness. The comments are v amusing on Maya's link above - people most disappointed not to see the genitals AG was so outraged by.

So many of these viral genderist posts that get shared are completely idiotic.

@MForstater

Thank you for all the incisive (and amusing) commentary Just caught up on everything here.

Have conveyed your appreciation to Ben!

The log in by 9:40 thing is just standard wording to tell people to get their IT issues sorted early.

If you have trouble getting a log in you can DM me.

I emailed yesterday to request a log in but maybe I should wait to see if it turns up in the next 30mins or so. If not, I shall request assistance later but it's understandable if you're otherwise engaged. :)

Does anyone have a "feel" for how it's going? I couldn't believe some of the things that were said yesterday, but still don't see which way the judgement could go.

My sense is that one part is leaning towards Maya because the CGD workplace, in its senior and junior staff, was hostile towards GC views but I have no sense of how the being employed or prospectively to be employed is going.

I bet there are a few people at Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers who are shaking at the knees, watching Ben Cooper QC eviscerate Luke. Your turn next!

@nauticant

My sense is that one part is leaning towards Maya because the CGD workplace, in its senior and junior staff, was hostile towards GC views but I have no sense of how the being employed or prospectively to be employed is going.

This is my sense too. - Its clear that a) they did not want to keep her own because of her views, not the manifestation b)they refused to listen to her so her "banging on" was simply a result of her trying to explain what she meant c) they changed their mind about what was acceptable following the report d) they did not follow due process (e.g. the two versions of the report)

but have no idea of the whether she will count as being employed for the purpose of this

• Its actually quite ironic isn't it? Employment status is a "social construct" and arbitary but CGD are not prepared to allow maya to self identify as being employed

Is the US really back there?

Are you thinking Scopes Monkey trial now? Sure, why not- we’ve gone from the Salem Witch Trials of the original “evidence gathering” at CGD, to the HUAC/McCarthy years of teeth sucking at potential Marxist tendencies so why not take in all of the really great show trials and persecutions?

Where next- can we get McLibel in there somewhere?

Snaps to @Zeugma for “dunderheaded” which is going to be my word of the day!

IAverydefinitelyNAL but it seems a little back to front to me that the tribunal hears evidence on the organisational culture, on the nature of Maya’s tweets, on any social media policy the company may or may not have had etc etc BEFORE they consider the issue of whether or not she had employee status. To me that feels like the fundamental point - even more so than whether her belief IWORIADS TBH, grateful though I am to have that clarified by an EAT - because if Maya is considered not to have been an employee then her case fails no matters how authoritarian and non-inclusive the workplace culture was/is?

Can someone wiser and more knowledgeable than me explain why it’s done this way round?

@nauticant

My sense is that one part is leaning towards Maya because the CGD workplace, in its senior and junior staff, was hostile towards GC views but I have no sense of how the being employed or prospectively to be employed is going.

Thank you.