Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

[Whatamesssss]

Thread one, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Thread two, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4505825-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-2?pg=1

@Pluvia

Just a reminder that MP is a man who works for a think-tank that carries out very research on (among other things) women's and girl's health and education and makes recommendations that governments follow.

Awful, isn’t it?

And he seems to read the phrase “99% of sex offenders are male” reads more like “99% of males are sex offenders”.

There’s a gaping difference between those two phrases and only one of them is correct.

I’d like to explore what the actual percentage of men who are sex offenders is, but it’s a tangent to this thread. What MP needs to know is that it’s not actually that small of a percentage, sadly. This may cause him some pain.

@nauticant

MP: the difficulty comes when Kathleen Stock's work is used to imply that, let's see if I can get this right, when the implication is then drawn that allowing people to identify as transwomen leads to an increase in predatoryness. Then he refers to the "red and black" video is also implying this.

He really really struggled to articulate that.

Someone needs to introduce MP to Baroness Nicholson and her NHS rape cover up discovery.

@Pluvia

Just a reminder that MP is a man who works for a think-tank that carries out very research on (among other things) women's and girl's health and education and makes recommendations that governments follow.

Needs to be repeated regularly!!

Re transcribing, should anyone wish to take this further, I used to use this company for transcribing market research groups. Looks like their rate would be a minimum of £58 per hour of note-taking

BC - you regarded QI's report as compelling so you regarded the claimant's actions as disrespectful? Are you now saying that's wrong?
MP -
BC - do you agree on reflection they were not disrespectful?
MP - there are some that were
BC - let's break down the QI report re her actions then. It goes further than just saying, she understands so let's judge how to handle in the workplace. They say her language & arguments are considered by much of society to be offensive.

I am imagining Ben Cooper circling like a shark that smells blood in the water now he’s kicked the “I’m being reasonable” foundations out from under MP

'Eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men came out and Ben Cooper took the rest.'

BC is actually eye-rolling now

And the constant discussion around how they did not actually read things and research further before making a decision like sacking someone.

BC is making the point that no matter how the argument is expressed, for example by Kathleen Stock even in the most considered terms, it will be considered as being incredibly offensive by QI and those who listen uncrtically to QI. In other words, when the protected belief is expressed, the "tone" will always be incredibly offensive, in the view of QI and CGD it is impossible to express the protected belief in an acceptable tone.

@HardyBuckette

I think the Americans think such things as the UK Equality Act don't apply to them their egos override their brains.

There's a definite America is the world vibe to this whole thing isn't there? My experience is that Americans who do this don't know they're doing it, and that seems to be what happened here.

I came across a very interesting comment on another forum about a different identity issue: "It seems that in America, people will believe you are a particular thing if you say you are and wear the uniform."

I thought this a very insightful remark. It certainly seems to be that way in the US these days, and their cultural imperialism is pushing that approach on the rest of the world.

@Zeugma

BC - of course the [video] presentation is different from eg KS, but it's a campaign video MP - refers to misleading statistics BC - but they’re not misleading statistics are they? MP - no

I don't feel sorry for MP at all but I imagine him hanging his head in shame at this response 🤣

Just catching up during me break. I wholeheartedly take back the respect I had for MP yesterday. He is evidently an outright MRA.

All moving a bit too quickly but basically BC is saying - QI are starting from the position that there was no way Maya could acceptably express her core beliefs because they were fundamentally offensive.

BC springs his trap...

I like this approach because to some degree it takes the sting out of CGD pointing to a particular tweet and saying the tone of that tweet was offensive, when there was plenty of stuff being said by Maya that was not offensive because it was true/valid but was perceived as being offensive and thus wholly irredeemable.

I came across a very interesting comment on another forum about a different identity issue: "It seems that in America, people will believe you are a particular thing if you say you are and wear the uniform."

Seems that way. So L Thomas putting on a Penn women's swim suit = female swimmer. Man body designated irrelevant.

BC is very good but let's not forget - the facts are the ones that are actually making the argument.

What we are all enjoying is someone not being able to avoid a difficult question.

I was day dreaming this morning about a politician being interviewed in this way - eg with someone with facts and statistics at their fingertips, and with no time constraints.

I would love someone to ask 'what is the risk to a transwoman of being placed in a male ward' 'could you give me an example of that happening' 'what is the risk to women of a transwomen being placed on a female ward' 'let me give you some examples of that happening' 'do you agree that the risks to women are far greater, and to a far greater number of women'. And on. And on.

We have the facts. And that makes the argument for us when someone is forced to face them.

BC - Having read the QI report, including the secret one, how am I or anyone else to know what the claimant could or couldn’t say?

MP - it would be difficult to know that

BC - it would be even more difficult if I only got the vague one?

MP - yes

BC: Having read the QI report how was the complainant to say what they could and couldn't say.

MP: It would be difficult to say [said resignedly].

BC: And this approach was uniquely for these beliefs?

He really is good, though. It's wonderful to watch such a practitioner work.

BC: So how does the QI report help us at all Mr Plant?

[Long pause]

MP: (gobbledegook about giving me parameters to have a conversation with Maya)

BC: Well I think we have gone as far as we can with the QI report

BC is very good but let's not forget - the facts are the ones that are actually making the argument.

I was thinking the same. The difference here is that when BC catches out CGD people in an inconsistency, their own prejudices, illogicality, misunderstanding of GC argument, they have to take it on the chin and can't drown him out by screaming "transphobe" or going #nodebate. Well, they could but that would help tip the scales against CGD.

About how many men actually are sex offenders (as opposed to those who get convicted for same) - I have a dim memory of some research that found that 20% of the men they asked would commit sexual assault on a woman if they knew they could definitely get away with it. Anyone else remember this, or got the source?

BC criticising the approach of substituting gay for trans. Let's see how MP explains this to BC who is gay.