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

This is up there with A Few Good Men, The Good Fight, To Kill a Mockingbird...

BC: There was a letter with loads of random people mentioned that trashed Kathleen Stock and you decided to view the letter as being correct over and above what Kathleen Stock had written as a professor of philosophy with a particular expertise in this issue.

MP's reasoning is that the letter has statistics that fitted into his belief of what he was supposed to think.

MP: very few men are predators

BC: that's the MRA argument isn't it?

BC: this is not your field is it?
MP: No
BC: did you look at academic writings on both side?
MP: No.
BC: did you take it at face value letter correct
MP: NO.
BC Prof Stock is a philosopher with expertise. Article she wrote attempts to provide academic views in a way that is understood by ordinary reader?
MP: yes. Critique here is incorrect or misleading because didn't correspond to statistics and the bothered me
BC: Did you look at authors of the letter
P: [not sure here]
BC: [The other letters wasn't ppl with relevant expertise] KS has the expertise why didn't you think so
MP : misuse of statistics to stoke fear. risk for trans people is high and this wasn't balanced in her argument.
MF understood the controversies
BC: when they accused Stock of saying TW are predators did you understand that is unfair?

Ben Cooper deserves a pay rise!

BC: so its not a misuse of stats? its a basis for SS spaces. we have SS spaces because men present a risk to women, men as a group
MP: its a small %
BC: 'the old mans rights debate'..'not all men'

Much talk of Katharine Stock's work and MP saying that he thought the statistics Stock presented were questionable because he'd seen other sources that promoted other statistics.

Doesn't seem to have occurred to him to go and check either set of statistics, though MP now admitting that 96-7% of sexual offenders are men.

BC now making the statement very clearly that MEN are predominantly responsible for sexual violence and this is the reason why women need single sex spaces.

MP tries NAMALT and BC quashes him. BC suggests that it's not just safety, it's comfort and dignity that require single sex spaces for women and MP agrees.

BC argues that Stock's argument, which MP thought was contorversial, is just common sense. (BC is getting it all out there, for the public to hear).

I've tried to have some respect for MP and his need to present CDG's position well.

He's deployed NAMALT and it's a small number of men who do this. And he's repeating this?

In the sea with him.

I fully endorse Ben Cooper going Pulp Fiction on him.

'I fully endorse Ben Cooper going Pulp Fiction on him.'

'I'm go'in get medieval on your ass.'

:)

MP: the difficulty comes when Kathleen Stock's work is used to imply that, let's see if I can get this right, when the implication is then drawn that allowing people to identify as transwomen leads to an increase in predatoryness. Then he refers to the "red and black" video is also implying this.

He really really struggled to articulate that.

Sorry, was called away....

BC - no doubt men are predominantly responsible for sexual violence?
MP - Y
BC - So that’s the reason we have single sex spaces?
MP - yes but a v small % of men?
BC - that's 'all men's rights'. But argument stands.
Keep men out as responsible for violence, & keep men out for women's comfort, safety & dignity
KS argued that spaces eg prisons, refuges, should be organised along sex divisions (keeps asking MP to agree; he does but v guardedly - 'if you say so')
BC - it’s not fair to characterise any of that as based on misleading statistics?
MP - LONG PAUSE. Struggles to explain himself. Difficulty comes when the implication is that allowing people to identify as TW increases level of predatoriness.
BC - where does KS say this?
MP - she doesn’t
But the red & black hand does

[yes, we're there again...]

Bloody hell go Ben!! Wipe the floor with him.

'I dare you, I double dare you mf say 'not all men' one more goddam time.'

BC: do you not agree this is reason for SS spaces? Part 1 keep men out to stop violence, Part 2 keep men out for comfort and safety and dignity yes?
MP: yes
BC: Prof Stock encapsulates - that women only spaces eg hostels etc should be sex based. TW are male and most retain male genitals - that's true isn't it?
MP yes take your word
BC: a small number of bad men- not a misuse of stats is it?
MP: small number yes
BC these reasons dont cease when males identify as women. Agree there is scope for debate but its not fair to say that argument is a misuse of stats or fear mongering is it?

I love how Plant is trying to say that Male Violence statistics are implying bad things if they are shown in a black and red video

MP is cross now.

MP: Difficulty with implication then drawn that TW ... allowing self ID increases uh.. um predatoriness
BC: Where does Stock say that?
MP: she doesnt
BC: where does Maya say that?
MP: its implied in red and black video
BC: No its not. Its very clear standing up for existing rights of women
MP: But presents stats in red and black that say 99% of sex predators are male
BC: Which is true and the reason ...
OD: please take MP to the document...

Oh, i had a bit of sympathy for MP, until be went all NAMALT. GO GET HIM BEN!!

We're now going through the "red and black video" which I think is this from FPFW:

BC FPFW video addresses Q of what self ID will mean, yes?
MP - Y
BC - explains consequence will be that same sex space will be much more difficult to enforce?
MP - Y

[lost a bit here sorry]
MP says the video is misleading
BC - but it isn't misleading - self ID will have an impact of W & G
OD interjects - objects to 'impact' & asks BC to reframe

MP just admitted TW have male patterns of offending behaviour.

And MP is now going full MRA.

BC: So your objection is about finding that men are sex offenders? It is the male rights objection, isn't it? How dare women regard men as predators?

MP: No. You have to understand the probabilities.

MP says it's objectionable to say that 99% of sex offenders are male while actually only a tiny proportion of males are sex offenders.

BC says that's a Male Rights argument.

MP: 99% of sex offenders are male misleads reader to males are sex offenders its very small % of males that's the problem
BC: so your objection is the male rights objection we discussed earlier?

This person works for a think tank.

Let that sink in.

So underneath it all, it seems that MP himself is offended by MF's reliance in her argument on the fact that males commit 99% of sex offences. That offends him.

So it's just misogyny.

BC - it’s true that 99% of sexual offenders are male yes?
MP - I believe so
BC - males have different patterns of offending to female?
MP - but it misleads people into believing males are sex offenders
BC - but your objection is that a men's right one?
MP - no you have to understand the probabilities
BC - it’s a campaign video, it’s not purporting to present a balanced argument for both sides. But CDG is not in the business of telling its fellows it can't do that.
MP - But we have to make the person aware it’s causing difficulties in the office and it’s causing friction in the office.
BC - you regard this as an example of inappropriate fearmongering