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

Long pause.

BC: LE eventually sent email to MF. She replied same day, saying she had added this disclaimer.

AG: Yes.

BC: And that was accepted? Compliant with the requirement?

AG: Yes.

BC: You comment on this response in your statement, saying the claimant sustained her intention to misgender TW?

AG: Yes

BC: She says the opposite, doesn't she?

This sounds very (although to be honest, I am struggling to understand all of it!)

If new evidence is disclosed, does that mean that witnesses can be recalled? If there is even more damning stuff, I would dearly like LE to be resurrected recalled to amuse us further (I realise "amuse" could be seen as a bit insensitive to Maya's stress, but hopefully listening to Mr Weaselly Easily Misled is providing a nice sensation of vindication!)

AG: She states that but she also states her intention to keep doing it because it's true (TW are men).

BC: Yes so that tells us, either you disbelieved her, or...

AG: She said two things and it's hard to assess her intentino.

BC: Do you not see a difference between a general statement, not about an individual, not in a work situation, but stating her beleifs, and treating an individual disrespectfully?

OD says BC is adding words.

Ahh good, BC is distinguishing between a general statement that TWAW and having committed to treat individuals with respect over correct-gendering. Getting to the heart of the protected belief.

@tabbycatstripy

Long pause.

I meant "a general statement that TWANW"

BC: Claimant is making a statement that she will express her beliefs. Yes?

AG: Yes.

BC: At the end, she is telling you what she will do at work, or when interacting with a particular person. Yes?

AG: Yes, but there were exchanges in the tweets that included PB. Including things I would consider rude.

BC: Okay. We can debate that separately. What she is saying is that at work and socually, she will use preferred pronouns.

AG: Yes, that's what she says here.

BC: You didn't think she was a liar, did you?

AG: No.

BC: What you mean when you say she sustained her intention to misgender, is that she sustained her right to express her core beliefs?

AG: I think that's how she understands it.

BC: No. What you mean is that she sustained her intention to misgender, and you mean by that that she maintained her intention to exercise her right?

AG: Yes. That TWAM.

BC: The crux is that...

Again, we're getting to the point that AG does not think that MF has the right to express her protected belief.

BC is pointing out this means that it is not possible for MF to express her belief at all.

BC: Crux is, how could MF have expressed her core beliefs (sets these out) without you regarding it as misgendering and offensive?

AG: Context is practical implications.

BC: No. I'm asking how she could have expressed her belief without you regarding it as not offensive and unacceptable?

AG: I think trans and cis. She distinguishes sex and GI. That's acceptable.

BC: Do you not understand there that you want her to concede her core beliefs?

AG: No. I'm not asking her to do anything.

BC: Do you understand that very many women but particularly GC women regard cis as offensive?

AG: No, I don't.

BC: CGD fond of the ET benchbook, and that makes that point at length.

OD objects.
AG:

BC: you're asking her to concede that there's such a thing as a cis-woman and a transwoman and many GC women view cis as offensive.

AG replies she's never come across "cis" being offensive.

My heart is thumping just reading this.

Astonishing stuff.

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:

Yes finally.

BC asking how AG thinks MF could express her belief without being offensive.

AG says only by talking in terms of TW and cis woman.

So we have to use ideological language to avoid being offensive.

AG choosing a hill to die on here: she doesn't understannd that women object to "cis" because they find it offensive.

This is good but will the tribunal panel grasp the issues here?

BC: You tell us in your statement that you spent time reviewing her tweets in detail?

AG: Yes.

BC: Claimant says there is an issue. Gender and sex are different and we shouldn't conflate. Lots of women don't identify as cis because it embraces gendered expectations. She is making the ppint that you don't appreciate or understand.

They just haven't bothered to work out what the issues are at all have they?
AG comment

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

I'm quite excited

Yes, using ignorance as a defence just shows that they should have been more open to understanding Maya's point of view and taking the opportunities she offered them to explain her beliefs and the reasons she holds them.

Amanda should come on these boards - she wouldn't last 5 minutes

AG is being drawn into saying that MF could express her core beliefs but as it goes on the way in which this would be permitted is looking very narrow, extremely proscriptive, and inevitaby MF would have to express things that go against her belief.

I'm liking Judge Glennie

OMG this is so much fun!