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

The judge has just said that watching and then making a written record of the proceedings is not a problem from a legal perspective.

MP continued to put things in writing after the point he had identified Maya as potentially litigious. He's not stupid - apart from his difficulties with basic statistics - so was he deliberately doing future Maya a favour here with his emails contradicting the EM narrative? I've gone back and forth on his motivations I must say. (based only on this and tweet threads, haven't heard or seen him giving evidence).

@Circumferences

Well, we all know the royals are nazi sympathisers, and half German....

aren't they lizzards

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/animals/reptiles/facts/gila-monster

I'm assuming it's because the whole sector has drunk the Kool Aid and they were worried Maya's views would make them look bad to their stakeholders.

That's been discussed several times and that is often the conclusion. Also the US staff would have been up in arms.

@RoyalCorgi

Has anyone else been wondering why they sacked her in the first place? And why they were then determined to see it all the way through the courts? They could, after all, have just said: "She's doing a good job. She has her opinions, we have ours. Live and let live."

I'm assuming it's because the whole sector has drunk the Kool Aid and they were worried Maya's views would make them look bad to their stakeholders.

I think it's worse than that.

They were the bullies they anticipated others would be, and got in 1st to signal a clear gap between Maya & her views, and CGD's views. They did to Maya what they thought would be done to them by like-minded people who were viciously intolerant of views like Maya's.

They think they signalled a position on the whole trans vs women issue by distancing themselves from Maya (trashing her reputation at the same time). But they illustrated they were part of the intolerant ones who would come after them.

I told myself I would not apply for the login as I REALLY have to finish some work this week... yeah, that didn't happen 👀

I wonder how many of the people involved in this are going, at the end, to be thinking "maybe there's something to these gender critical views after all" and how many are going to be thinking "MF was not punished enough and if CGD has to be burned to the ground to uphold the gender identity ideology then so be it".

Nice to see a Langificus Clegosaurus has logged in... [mumsnetty wave]

I've been surprised how restrained people have been in their choice of identifier to be displayed onscreen.

Tiny aside but I read something a couple of years ago which calculated from two different sources, one was self reported, and the conclusion was that approx 6% of men were rapists.

So that's more than 1 in every 20. Think about how many rapists that is in sainsburys, the office, among the school parents.

Then multiply up across the country.

It's really not that tiny a percentage at all.

And that's just rapists, not people who do less serious offences. I'll try and find a link

It's the Chelsea pensioners that you really need to keep an eye on

Does anyone know why Respondents’ Counsel from the EAT case hasn’t been used for this ET case?

@SecondRow

MP continued to put things in writing after the point he had identified Maya as potentially litigious. He's not stupid - apart from his difficulties with basic statistics - so was he deliberately doing future Maya a favour here with his emails contradicting the EM narrative? I've gone back and forth on his motivations I must say. (based only on this and tweet threads, haven't heard or seen him giving evidence).

Yes, I'm wondering the same. He clearly isn't as passionately against the TWANW view as others, I think he foresaw this could blow up and wanted to play devil's advocate, at least, or provide a warning voice. It still baffles me how little the US ppl understood about UK workplace rules and culture.

I did consider logging in as Joanne Rowling. (I am not, nor have I ever been, JK Rowling. More's the pity. )

OD is back drawing analogies with homophobia ......

I wonder how they would characterise a sexual orientation that is based on people's physical sex?

I suspect Mark has gone for a lie down in a dark room.

Looking at the blasphemous pamphlet now Master Plant do you think it proves Goody Forstater is a witch?

@PronounssheRa

It's the Chelsea pensioners that you really need to keep an eye on

Another reminder of Philip/Pips Bunce for people not familiar:

www.diogo-duarte.com/pips

Funny how cross dresser is now "offensive" even though under the trans umbrella and also a term used in the Scottish hate crime law.

@nauticant

Looking at the blasphemous pamphlet now Master Plant do you think it proves Goody Forstater is a witch?

💪

OD back calling Philip Bunce's description of himself offensive - AP agrees it is offensive.
BC is saying he didn't ask MP about this so why is OD asking in cross-x
OD - I'm trying to establish what was offensive.
Judge G - OD can follow up point
OD is it ligitimate offence or reasonable offence.
Judge G - stick to MP's response not his reflection on others opinions.

The judge expresses some irritation at questioning being that some people for some reasons find a Stonewall approved term like cross-dresser to be offensive.

Plant is done.