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

I'm back in.

(Yes, MA said the quiet part - any discussion of the increased risk to women and girls of actual changes to laws in the countries we live in is offensive.)

Mighty impressive, Tabby.

Thank you :)

Astonishing work tabby

Wish we could collectively book you a Jo Makone hand massage after this

Malone!

Ha! In a single-sex space? ;)

I expect MA is oblivious of exactly how many women are now strongly offended by him calling us 'cis'. Teeth gnashing offended.

I can't believe he (MA) was worried about Maya damaging the company reputation, he's doing a stirling job himself today

I've logged back in to the tribunal but nothing's happening. It's ironic that this technical hitch occurred just at the time that BC was being asked about to timing.

he's saying it's offensive for women to think there's risks involved in giving up same-sex spaces

This is what genderism relies on.

Women not thinking.
Women not speaking up.
Women doing as they are told.

It's wrong, offensive, bigoted, transphobic of women to be scared, cautious, worried, concerned.

We have to 'get over it'.
There is 'no debate'.

Transwomen are women and to disagree, to ask questions, to talk about our trauma, to discuss women's rights, will lead to us being labelled 'terf' and attacked, doxxed, pilloried, threatened, etc.

I've been reading all of this for the past few years but it is still extraordinary to realise, even now, that this is how this whole movement operates. The entire premise is to subjugate women to be, do, and say what men want.

MRAs just found a new outfit to wear, that's all.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems from MA's evidence that:

• some people found MF's protected beliefs offensive
• MF agreed to reduce how much she tweeted from her work-linked account, agreed to a disclaimer, asked for detail on exactly what wording would be acceptable
• the "offended" people caused so much fuss management needed it to stop and so got rid of MF

It begs the question - why not insist on belief diversity training for the "offended" people and tell them they need to get a grip.

And we're back...

BC: MA, p (). Paper for CGDE Board meeting. True and accurate?

MA: Y

BC: This says same sort of thing - one CGD. 'In operation'. Third bullet says 'one CGD has worked well.' But for the most part CGDE was successful in remaining a seamless part of the org. So again, the truth is one CGD operated well for the most part? You are spinning because you want to try to present it to help your case?

MA: N.

BC: p(), This says in 'grounds of resistance' (which you read and approved) it says second respondent operates separately from first. On any view, at the least, that is incomplete and misleading, because they operate according to one CGD principle?

MA: Nevertheless as separate orgs with own legal structures and boards.

BC: Statement doesn't limit itself in that way. It's about ops. It says without qualification that they operate separately. It isn't accurate.

MA: It's accurate, whether we could have added more detail is a separate point.

BC It would have been more accurate to mention one GCD principle?

MA: No, it's no less accurate. They are independent legal charities with own boards, two regulatory systems.

BC: This is more spin, isn't it?

MA: N

BC: Do I understand your position to be that you were not really aware of fundraising for the tax and IFF work before autumn of 2018?

MA: Y... If you mean the Gates grant, yes. If you are asking if I was aware of previous fundraising, then some of it in early 2018. That's complete answer.

BC: That is more accurate, isn't it?

(Right, my battery dying so will bow out for a bit.)

Another magnificent effort from tabby and co, in awe, frankly.

BC: Viv, it is the case that you'd positively suggest arranging a short period of time to allow you to feast your eyes on my perfectly tied yellow tie and communicate how splendid you think I am over a decent glass of red wine. Yes?"
Viv: "yes"

Many thanks for this.

he's saying it's offensive for women to think there's risks involved in giving up same-sex spaces

Yes and yet there are risks. We have the statistics, Trans-identifying males are no less likely to pose a threat than males in general, and there is also (as anyone with a brain could easily predict) an added risk - as shown by existing cases - of predatory males deliberately using self-ID to access female spaces.

So it's offensive to believe and/or say that an actual risk is a risk?

It's truly bizarre.

Discussion now of attempt to find paid work on illicit financial flows in 2018 between MA and Owen Barder. MA minimising this.

Tabby, you're brilliant at this !

Thank you once again, @tabbycatstripy and everyone for your valuable contributions. I'm really grateful.

@tabbycatstripy

Thank you :)

Bless your nimble little paws! 🐾

Thank you so much, Tabby.

As pp said, why is it ok for him to rely on a risk analysis, to someone else's detriment, and not for women to even talk about risks?

MA: I don't find that offensive. I find it offensive to imply, as this does, that allowing transpeople to self-ID, and be women, would lead to an increased set of risks of discomfort for cis women. That's what I found and find offensive. I'm willing for people to hand this out outside, but I don't think it should be in the office and putting it amongst your colleagues.

He's a man. He has absolutely no right to speak to this issue. Women have said that it does not 'risk' discomfort. It has caused discomfort so it's a proven truth. That man urgently needs some diversity training if he thinks this is a reasonable thing to say.

Fantastic work, tabby, we are all indebted!

(earlier) MA: in my mind, it was distracting and we had no reason to be involved with this debate.
... and how is that panning out for you?