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

and yet it is a description PB applies to himself, so he's finding a description PB uses to describe PB's sincerely held belief of his own identity offensive?? The pretzel these people make of themselves is mind blowing.

Oh, this is far far too slippery. MA has effectively been at the level of senior politician/civil servant for a long time and as a result has a bad case of the Sir Humphreys.

@VestofAbsurdity

and yet it is a description PB applies to himself, so he's finding a description PB uses to describe PB's sincerely held belief of his own identity offensive?? The pretzel these people make of themselves is mind blowing.

To be fair, it now seems unclear that there is a verifiable source for that specific description going by that exchange between OD and MP.

I await enlightenment on that point.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

What's this? Was this said in evidence? Bit lost about what points OD was trying for there at the end.

Yes. It was around when MP said that he found the description of part time crossdresser to be offensive. He explained that he felt it was (I paraphrase) an unnuanced summary of PB's journey to discovering he was genderfluid. MP mentioned that he had supported/assisted someone who had made a similar journey.

thanks! Wow.

Explains MP's MRA position and his rant about not all men and TW are like that, you're being mean saying men and TW offend at the same rate, etc.

God he's appalling. So evasive.

MA letter to MF

On day 1 she was asked to mute when BC was questioning the witness. But the judge made it clear that she has every right to take notes whilst she was questioning witnesses and that people should stop complaining.

*On day 1 OD was asked...

MA: my position has always been that MF's core beliefs are WORIADS.

Shame that he approved a set of pleadings stating the opposite.

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

[wave back] trying to keep up.... I wish I could pass Ben some sort of detangling utensil

stick to my questions, please...

Back from my errands and I can’t resist. Just logged back in.

BC: have you and CGD always been that MF's core beliefs are WORIADS.

MA: Yes.

It makes you wonder why CGD have been fighting this for years.

Oh good grief. This man is talking absolute gibberish.

BC - 'spin, obfuscation and untruthfulness - dishonesty, I will put it in those terms'

Tell it like it is, Ben

Ben sets a trap for them and they fall right into it every time dont they? The Judge getting impatient now.

MA: I personally believe that this set of views (Maya's) are WORIADS, and I understand that they need protecting

BC: Page 179 please, the core of the beliefs as summarised by Judge Taylor at the first Employment Tribunal. You understand that Judge Taylor found those beliefs to be Not WORIADS

MA: You are taking me into difficult territory

BC: the respondents, you personally have always meant to accept that the claimant's belief that she will accept that a TW is a W, is WORIAD

MA: Depends on how those beliefs are manifested.

BC: Stick to my questions please. Not credible for you to assert. Absolutely clear that the respondents's position is Not WORIADS

BC: you have a tendancy for spin, untruthfulness and obfuscation. Take your time. You're a respondent in this claim.

Judge: I want to be clear. Mr Ahmen what you seem to be seaying is that you personally have always thought these Beliefs WORIADS

MA: Yes

Judge: Therefore if the respondent is putting forward Not WORIADS, you personally don't agree with your own position

BC is continually getting MA to be evasive and then BC makes mini-conclusion after mini-conclusion that MA will spin something into whatever suits him and CGD.

The judge is expressing bafflement that the argument was being advanced by CGD was the opposite. The judge tried to get MA to agree that MA disagreed with CGD and got a load of waffle in response.

BC is finding MA as slippery as an eel and having to be very polite about how he points that out to the tribunal. Judge seems to be trying to stick a pin in the eel himself now!

Judge (effectively) asking MA "are you a TERF?"

(MA clarifies he thought MF's idea re sex/gender were OK)

This reminds me of talking to my teenage children.

Me: you didn't show up at school today.

Teen: yes I did.

Me: no you didn't

Teen: yes I did

Me: no you didn't.

Teen: I did!

Me: no. you. didn't.

Teen: alright I didn't

Judge: Therefore if the respondent is putting forward Not WORIADS, you personally don't agree with your own position

That is just 👌

I mean. Imagine sitting on oath, saying that. To the judge. Who is questioning your contradicting logic.

MA: there was no discussion about MF's core beliefs. What was discussed was MF's expression of them and the risk that posed to CGD.

James Kirkup is watching. There will be a cracker of an article coming out of this.