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

The judge needing to intervene to make AG answer the questions.

AG cannot answer questions about how Maya could express her beliefs in a way that wouldnt upset Amanda/CGD

Is AG pretty much throwing the London office under a bus and publicly deploring their culture?

AG: What's the question?

BC: You didn't understand.

AG: I think gender and sex are different things and that's the way of talking about this. I don't think there is guidance from CGD in how to talk about these issues in this way. (She sounds quite confused here.)

BC: So you understand you must talk about women as cis, that you are saying she can't express her fundamental belief, and you must embrace a label that you regard as offensive?

AG: No.

BC: You struggle with this because there is no way she could have expressed her core belief, is there?

AG: I don't think so. Gender and sex are different, and that is one way she could have said it.

BC: You're now telling me the core belief. If you look, the ET quotes the core belief. Sex is immutable. COuld she have said that?

AG: That is her belief. What I feel is different. It's not relevant.

BC: You don't get to decide that. It's very relevant.

AG: The position is not to police her speech.

EJ: AG, it is relevant.

BC: Could the claimant in your view say, acceptably, sex is immutable?

AG: Yes, that is her belief.

EJ: We know that is her belief. The question is, can she express that beleif in a way that is not offensive to you?

AG: Er. I... I find it absolutist, but it is her belief but I respect it. So she is welcome to use it that way.

BC: On Twitter in which she identifies her CGD affi.iation?

AG: Yes.

BC: In a discussion with a colleague?

AG: I don't think this is a discussion to have at work. I think it's personal.

BC: I think we agreed that in fact, at least in London, it was common and accepted for people to dsicuss personal beleifs. No?

AG: At that time, yes.

BC: Leaving aside that you would rather than hadn't been the culture, if it was, then MF making that statement, is that something she could say acceptably and unoffensively?

AG: She works in a company that has two parts, but she could say it, but people will interpret it in different ways and that requires sensitivity.

BC: There are only two sexes, male and female.. Can she say that?

AG: With the disclaimer, yes.

BC: Can she say it at work?

AG: Given the culture, apparently yes.

BC: She considers this material reality. Can she say that?

AG: She has said it.

BC: That sex is material and different to GI. Can she say that?

AG: Yes, I think she did. I think it was in fact offensive to a number of people in DC.

BC: Do you agree that there's difference between some people taking offence, and whether that belief is objectively offensive?

AG: Can you repeat?

BC: In a democracy, we don't have to restrict our statements to things nobody is offended by, do we?

AG: No. We need not.

@Rodedooda

I notice that after the judge's intervention AG is being much more relaxed in what she's saying it would be fine for MF to do.

BC: The acceptability of what she said on twitter cannot be judged by whether some people were offended can it?

AG: [dodges the question]

BC: so this can't be judged by whether people took offence?

AG: It's about people with diverse backgrounds and being offensive to them. But is it her right? Of course.

BC: It's not quite, it's a workplace, is it, because you were reacting to tweets?

AG: Yes.

BC: So whether it should compromise her status with CGD is about judging her engagement on Twitter?

AG: Repeat?

BC: The principal issue at that point was what the claimant had said outside work?

AG: Yes.

BC: When I put to you a question about Twitter, you talk about work. That can't be right, can it? The test can't be what is acceptable at work?

AG: Perhaps. But the context of this is about the response to her tweets. It generated feelings and complaints. She said it wasn't controversial or offensive.

BC: Acceptability of what she said on Twitter can't be judged by whether some were offended, can it?

AG: Not sure.

BC: Again at the phrase I was on, sex is a material reality is an accetable thing to say on Twitter, associated with CGD, even if it causes offence?

AG: It happened and there will be other cases.

BC: Men are adult males, women adult females. Can she say that?

AG: With a disclaimer, yes.

BC: In London?

Right, have lost my place. Will break for a bit!

EJ interrupts. He's getting lost. When something is offensive or not, is BC asking whether she finds it offensive, or whether CGD does?

Yes, Judge Glennie intervened to tell AG she had to answer.

This is all about making it clear that CGD just wanted MF to shut up and there was no way she could say anything on the subject.

There was a nice moment earlier when BC made the point that just because one or two people find something offensive doesn't mean that it is offensive and needs to be suppressed.

Tabby, how do you do this? I'm in awe.

BC pointing out that AG's personal sense of something being offensive doesn't make it unacceptable in the London office. Does AG agree that MF could make her statement (about adult males) without breaking CGD rules or policies?

AG says in the abstract it's hard to know.

BC: If the claimant - on Twitter - says a TW isn't a woman and a TM isn't a man, could she say that on Twitter without breaking a rule or policy at CGD?

AG: I feel it violates the value statements in the handbook. But she wasn't an employee.

@JackieWeaversZoomAc

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

Thanks for the news flash. I had missed that!

AG just said that a statement by MF was permitted because although it would be against what was specified in the Employee Handbook, MF was not an employee. AG is smart, although ideologically captured.

BC: Going back to the claimant's response to LE...

AG: Yes.

BC: One of your objections is that the claimant was presenting her beliefs as facts, but you understand her beliefs are about facts?

AG: That is what she argues here, yes.

BC: When we drill down, every time, you are saying she can't state her beliefs in the terms of those beliefs? If she says it, you say that's offensive and absolutist? Do you agree?

AG: No. My objections are about likening being trans to mental illness etc.

BC: In the second paragraph, the claimant stands by her core statement of belief (material reality/immutability). All a statement of core belief?

AG: Yes.

EJ: deals with something administrative.

Right, have to take a break to get battery!

I think gender and sex are different things and that's the way of talking about this

Is this what AG believes or her saying what MF should have said?
LE said sex and gender are the same.

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

No answer. Did we get an answer from Luke yesterday? I seem to think the same avoidance was played by him too.

Judge saying that a spectator who joined (and has now left) might have been a streaming channel.

Is it possible that EJ doesn't understand connection through Skype and that it doesn't have to involve streaming?

@nauticant

AG just said that a statement by MF was permitted because although it would be against what was specified in the Employee Handbook, MF was not an employee. AG is smart, although ideologically captured.

Keep an eye on that.

BC comes back to core beliefs.

AG: The first part of her statement is core beliefs.

BC: In the context of this email MF is responding to an assertion that she has published offensive and exclusionary statements. Yes?

AG: To refer to the exact language, it says some people would.

BC: It says a lot of people.

AG: Yes.

BC: So you can parse precise language, but it is clear intention and effect to say to MF that the language is not acceptable because some or a lot would find it offensive. Yes?

AG: It's a workplace and it's asking her to be sensitive to other people's realities and views.

BC: Well, it's not talking about the workplace. ]

AG: yes, but the colleague is in the workplace and Twitter is like a workplace conversation.

BC: Are you saying it wasn't the purpose to tell her her statements were regarded by a lot of people as offensive, and don't say it on Twitter?

AG: I don't think it's don't say it on Twitter. It's asking for the disclaimer.

(right, a proper break for me before I go squiggle-eyed!)

Yes, I wondered if the assertion that Maya wasn't an employee was significant