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

They are thick. They are having to take decisions about the court of public opinion in McCarthyist/witch hunt times when if they take a wrong stance they themselves as an organisation will be cancelled if they do not "get with the programme" and indeed drink the cool aid and call black white etc on the trans issue.

As we 30m+ Uk women are only now (in terms of the mainstream of women) seeing the adverse effects of calling transwomen women in terms of the harm to at least 30m of us only now in a bigger way are we getting the chance to voice views, due to various media outlets at last allowing debate on the issue - such at the Times. Mrs May thankfully chose not to go forward with changing our very caring balanced current gender change laws which are fine as they are - which was a good decision of hers.

Anyway I am glad this is all getting more publicity. There are some employers who have one view only on topics that makes it hard if an employee has a very different view they respectfully express to treat that minority employee fairly. The sad thing for trans people is most women in the UK are pretty considerate to their plight and do not want to harm them and certainly don't hate them but we do not want all women damaged because of a few people who are trans.

*They're not: they are very smart people.

They're not being scrutinised for their subject matter expertise or professional knowledge.*

This - I work with extremely smart people but they are really only interested in their specific field, where that takes them and how it benefits them. On wider issues they are often extremely intellectually uncurious and they tend to go with zeitgeist as obviously someone smart must have thought out these arguments properly so that they didn't have to. They also hire 'smart people' to do their thinking for them in areas where they are not specialist.

Watching again today (in spite of imminent deadlines). Thank you for your extraordinary resilience and determination to see this injustice righted Maya. Whatever the outcome, we owe you a huge debt.

Logged in for the final morning. Good luck to Maya.

I'm uncomfortable with describing people who disagree with the GC perspective as 'dumb'.

We have no idea why they've followed GI thinking. Maybe they are following someone they trust. Maybe they naturally trust 'experts'. Maybe they just want to be kind but haven't thought through the consequences.

Not thinking deeply about a subject isn't that hard. That's why we want to have these debates. What's the point of getting upset about 'no debate' if you believe everyone else is 'dumb' anyway?

I believe they're mistaken. I believe this ET will do loads to prompt people to think through the consequences of what they're saying or following. And that when we talk about sunlight it is just another word for education.

ThinkWitty: I'd never call anyone 'dumb' but some of them are obviously not clever. They embrace obviously fallacies. They can't update their thinking when they get new information. They can't spot motivated thinking or bias. It's not smart.

(Obvious fallacies - hoist on my own petard there. :)

I think they are often highly educated but ideologically captured individuals who know that it is to their advantage to claim to believe what "everyone else" in their network claims to believe. There will also be some true believers who have some awareness that there are cognitive dissonances around every corner and as a result they react very strongly against someone encourages them to peek around one of these corners.

But I have a friend who is clever and says TWAW. It's not a belief, it's a choice to say it even though she doesn't believe it. She has lots of LGB friends, and values that in her life, so she will convince herself to say something as a symbol of acceptance that she doesn't actually think. When I asked about biological sex, of course she believed in it. When I asked if TW were literally women, she said no. But says they're a 'type of woman' as if it's an honorific.

Its amazing what very intelligent people can believe if it is made virtually impossible to express an opposing belief

I think there's a lot of deliberate dissociating from real world consequences too. It's ingrained thinking - like picking a football team to support and staying loyal to them throughout relegation and the odd victory, cheering them on and being really invested in championing 'the underdog'. I see that with the well educated, intelligent TRAs that I know (mostly middle aged white women.) They've chosen their side and it's a matter of emotion rather than factual analysis. And a lot of confirmation bias, too.

Winter: Yes, it's a faith statement or emotional decision. Like saying you love someone when you don't - there's an automaticity about it. Lying to themselves as well as us.

@tabbycatstripy

But I have a friend who is clever and says TWAW. It's not a belief, it's a choice to say it even though she doesn't believe it. She has lots of LGB friends, and values that in her life, so she will convince herself to say something as a symbol of acceptance that she doesn't actually think. When I asked about biological sex, of course she believed in it. When I asked if TW were literally women, she said no. But says they're a 'type of woman' as if it's an honorific.

That's probably one of the categories identified by Harry Frankfurt in the On Bullshit essay.

www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf

I will need to read that! 'On bullshit' - cool.

Guess who's back. Back again. Ben Cooper's back. Tell a friend.

Well, that was a bizarre start to proceedings. Someone called Richard Kirker appeared to be fiddling with his fly in front of his computer...

I think watching the whole Lia Williams thing unfold at the same time is quite useful, actually, as it’s such a stark demonstration.

Anyway, annoyingly I can’t get into the live feed today as I’m away from home and on iPad, which doesn’t seem to like the link from the court, so will be relying on the great women of this thread to keep me updated.

Good luck today Maya
It's surely a testament to the importance of what you're doing when all the same arguments that play out silently in the heads of so many women are actually being said out loud.

I will need to read that! 'On bullshit' - cool.

Noah discusses the essay here. It's from 2007 so a bit dated in re: the role of social media but it's a decent overview of parts. I liked his thoughts on this bit of Frankfurt and what we see in politics.

Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to. …The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

slate.com/culture/2005/03/defining-bullshit.html

Back with Masood Ahmed evidence.

BC taking MA to after termination, and MA corresponding with core group about what to say to workforce. Draft email from MP amended by AG. MA said he thought need to respond to MP and says AG draft good and invited other comments.

MA: Y

BC: You read it?

MA: Just got off a plane, read it in airport, seemed good basis, Y.

BC: In draft, explanation given for termination of VF is management judged positions MF took on sex and gender weren't consistent with CGD values. So again, position was the issue.

MA: I saw that.

BC: Bundle: After some further back and forth, you send amended draft with has alternative wording proposed by EM.

MA: Y

BC: Took out that explanation (positions) and inserted 'goal was clear guidelines about respectful dialogue' 'led to parting of ways.' Different explanation?

MA: Correct

BC: You seem at this point to be prepared to adopt alternative explanation?

MA: Y

BC: Bundle: If you look here, had you read this other email before suggesting EM wording?

MA: Y

BC: And you told us Friday that MP was person dealing with MF on whom you were relying?

MA: Y

BC: questions, then. You endorsed the first explanation? The one you gave in the call? That it was positions? I suggest that's true.

MA: I read initial draft from AG, and I just read it quickly and took 'positions' as 'positioning'. I didn't focus enough on that. EM pointed out this could be misinterpreted and I agreed.

BC: Bundle.

BC: Where does EM say that? Misinterpreted?

MA: First sentence made me realise that.

BC: The spin you are now putting on this is that you understood it to mean manner and way she expressed views, not views themselves, but you didn't draw this conclusion at time?

MA: That's how I interpreted it initially. I thought EM suggestion helpful. I thought useful to clarify.

BC: On any sensible view, EM is saying don't say anything about positions, not because it's not true but because MF wants this.

MA: Both

BC: If you had properly read MP email, you must have understood it was not true that MF had not agreed way forward? Email is clear, isn't it? He says MF had been prepared to find way forward. That wasn't why it was terminated, was it?

MA: That's what MP said but I didn't agree.

BC: I suggest we in fact see you being prepared to adopt a misleading or inaccurate explanation where you think it will help you?

MA: N

BC: Bundle. Witness statement. Here you say VF was not renewed because 1) reputational risk. That's not a reason you gave MF?

MA: Fair

BC: Nor does that appear in talking points from MP?

MA: N

BC: You rely on Comic Relief tweets as example?

MA: That's the only example but not the only risk?

BC: But you hadn't seen any documents on Comic Relief?

MA: By time I made decision, AG had mentioned it.

BC: Are you saying AG mentioned it? But AG had only been sent QI report that didn't refer to them?

MA: AG had mentioned issues and concerns about risk and had mentioned Comic Relief.

BC: Look back to bundle and statement. You say your reaction to QI report that we looked at, and there you say the example of Comic Relief stood out from the QI report. So that can't be true, can it?

MA: I think on Friday I said (can't hear him...)

BC pointing out inconsistencies in recollections.

MA: I can't say on this day, but AG was person mostly following this with regard to stakeholders.

BC: Suggest this is not true. You are in your statement again referring to things that were not in your mind.

MA: N

BC: In relation to CR tweets, you must have known MF didn't know they were relied on. Y?

MA: I don't know. N.

BC: Bundle.

EJ: We don't have the bundle yet this morning.

BC: Bundle. This is the difficulty: you are proceeding on an inadequate investigation. If MF had known CR relief was relied on, she would have been able to tell you she had spoken to senior person at CR. Claimant had written to CR and set out concerns in some detail. You see response from Exec Director saying thank you for considered and articulate email.

MA: Y

BC: You see MF was referred to a blog they had published in response to criticism they had received.

MA: Y

BC: Copy of that blog. In it, they acknowledge criticism is because they, on anniversary of important woman in history they nominated a TW. They received criticism, acknowledged it and said they will always support right of orgs to decide for themselves how to support the community. They want to ensure what they say and do is part of a conversation. They will continue to listen. MF would have been able to show you that CR adopted a grown up approach and didn't criticise those who expressed concerns?

MA: Y

BC: Reality on reputational risk is that there had been no adverse comment from any funder.

MA: That's why I say risk, not reality. I was concerned about the future.

BC: Come back to that, but do you agree?

Technical difficulties.

so they are allowed to worry about "risk" vs "reality," while women are expected to assume there are no risks whatsoever....