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

@nauticant

The QI report did show they had studied the EA 2010 ("QI did review UK’s Equality Act of 2010", see page 1), but their error was to think only in terms of it applying to other staff members exposed to MF's views, and didn't recognise that it would also operate to give MF rights.

Yes. MP was still doing this this afternoon in his evidence.

When BC was talking about the example of the Christian offended by the gay people kissing outside work, MP suggested it would depend on how they (the Christian) phrased their complaint (i.e. as to whether the Christian should face consequences in the workplace).

But he got the analogy backwards. In BC's analogy, the Christians are the complainer in the initial situation, not the people who faced consequences and are claiming for discrimination.

BC was referring to MF as the equivalent of the 'gay person' whose behaviour was stated to be 'offensive' to some (unreasonably, he implied) but MP immediately leapt to the idea that the Christian in the situation was MF.

In other words, he leapt to the conclusion - again - that it was her actions that were - potentially - discriminatory, rather than that she has been discriminated against.

Hardy - they could just have consulted a UK employment lawyer. It's not that hard, is it?

About the only thing of value in the QI report was their suggestion on page 5 that "We highly recommend that CGD engage an external facilitator to help structure this conversation and ensure that CGD analyzes potential policy decisions from a number of different angles" and this might have be the reason why CGD Europe brought Ruth Szabo on board who seemed to be the only person on the CGD side who was talking sense.

Nauticant: That's upselling. I'm fairly sure they mean them.

Their 'consultancy' (QI) was probably a two woman band operating out of their home offices and charging gold for crap. It's very usual with this sort of thing. It's a fig leaf for the decisions the management had made already.

Hardy - they could just have consulted a UK employment lawyer. It's not that hard, is it?

You would think.

I'm beginning to think there might be a very big market for EDI consultants who actually know the law and isn't captured by GI.

We know this stuff pretty well .....

Just to add my thanks to Tabby for the brilliant transcribing. I've been hooked. I know the outcomes of this are deadly serious for all women, but I can't help feeling that my contributions to Maya's gardening fund were worth it for the entertainment alone!

Place marking again cheers

What's the big picture outcome though? American devotees, whether individuals or their organisations (Guardian US, ACLU and so on) aren't going to change overnight, they are just going to bang on about Terf Island.

I'm still pinning my hopes on women's sports.

this might have be the reason why CGD Europe brought Ruth Szabo on board who seemed to be the only person on the CGD side who was talking sense.

RS's influence seems to have been severely hampered by her verifiable expertise in this area which did not deliver anything that fell into line with the preferred narrative of dominant and influential voices in CDG who seem to have been driving this.

When BC was talking about the example of the Christian offended by the gay people kissing outside work, MP suggested it would depend on how they (the Christian) phrased their complaint (i.e. as to whether the Christian should face consequences in the workplace).

But he got the analogy backwards. In BC's analogy, the Christians are the complainer in the initial situation, not the people who faced consequences and are claiming for discrimination.

BC was referring to MF as the equivalent of the 'gay person' whose behaviour was stated to be 'offensive' to some (unreasonably, he implied) but MP immediately leapt to the idea that the Christian in the situation was MF.

In other words, he leapt to the conclusion - again - that it was her actions that were - potentially - discriminatory, rather than that she has been discriminated against.

Yes, this was a really interesting exchange, that neatly got to the heart of it.

Thank you, everyone. I don't usually post on MN but I know this is worth my time (all of our time). Tomorrow I can't do all day as I'm travelling, but I might manage an hour.

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.

Place marking

@Awkwardy

What's the big picture outcome though? American devotees, whether individuals or their organisations (Guardian US, ACLU and so on) aren't going to change overnight, they are just going to bang on about Terf Island.

I'm still pinning my hopes on women's sports.

It will take time. At first the people who lead the backlash will be very right wing and they will react in ways that are unreasonable for trans people (in my view). Laws in some states will be very unfair. And they will gain enough support that the left wing starts to cower and come round, and then a consensus will emerge. But not without a lot of pain and harm for everyone.

1. Organisations always want to look bigger than they are. When they wrote in the Gates report that MF was (essentially) an employee, it may have been because they didn't want to look like they rely on freelancers. Implying you have a bigger staff than you do is a thing.

That's an interesting idea, and plausible.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

1. Organisations always want to look bigger than they are. When they wrote in the Gates report that MF was (essentially) an employee, it may have been because they didn't want to look like they rely on freelancers. Implying you have a bigger staff than you do is a thing.

That's an interesting idea, and plausible.

But they're not going to say that. So they have to say it was some coincidental error. I'd be interested to know their actual headcount of permanent staff in London in 2018/19.

The US/UK cultural factors that are at work in this are really interesting, including some of the assumptions on display that US norms dominate:

1. Workplaces can hire and fire at will.
2. There should not be discussion of anything "problematic" in the workplace.
3. US laws apply globally, other countries have their own law but they don't really count.
4. In the gender issue, there is a hierarchy of rights, there isn't such a thing as needing to balance conflicting rights.
5. Possibly a belief that free speech rights are unique to the US, "the US is the only country to have a First Amendment".

It is, Nauticant. 'Problematic' is a word that needs a serious deep-dive because people use it to mean entirely different things.

Thanks tabby

Perhaps they think that most things can be discussed in the workplace but because for certain issues everyone will naturally hold pretty much the same view*, as a result "problematic" discussions will simply just not happen.

• look how they see a belief in the immutability of sex to be so incredibly "out there" that to them it looks like a Neo-Nazi belief

@unwashedanddazed

Just to add my thanks to Tabby for the brilliant transcribing. I've been hooked. I know the outcomes of this are deadly serious for all women, but I can't help feeling that my contributions to Maya's gardening fund were worth it for the entertainment alone!

Completely agree. It’s gripping stuff. I hope tabby is chilling out with a or . Ben too. 👏

The US/UK cultural factors that are at work in this are really interesting, including some of the assumptions on display that US norms dominate

And the complete ignorance of the protections that exist for protected characteristics in general in the UK (including, of course, the PC of gender reassignment) unlike the US…

Yes. I think that for some people, 'problematic' means 'controversial', for others it means 'presents problems' (like, practical problems when people express it) and for another group it just means 'views we don't like' (but don't realise might be valid because we are not in fact in charge).

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

The US/UK cultural factors that are at work in this are really interesting, including some of the assumptions on display that US norms dominate

And the complete ignorance of the protections that exist for protected characteristics in general in the UK (including, of course, the PC of gender reassignment) unlike the US…

I've seen gender reassignment mentioned - I think in the QI report - where they state current uk law gender reassignment = self id. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere where someone was saying this is the case.

But I don't think it is so????