Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 4

[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

Thread three, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater - Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any one of the 3 members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1

CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2

LE = Luke Easley, Vice president for HR and operations at CGD, first witness for CGD
AG = Amanda Glassman, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe), second witness for CGD
MP = Mark Plant, Chief Operating Officer of CGD Europe, third witness for CGD
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3, fourth witness for CGD

EM = Ellen MacKenzie, an off-stage character at CGD, involved in much that went on.

Maya's website has lots of relevant information and is collating the live tweets.
www.hiyamaya.net

twitter.com/tribunaltweets is the account to look at for the live tweets. Plus some live posting and discussion on these threads.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

They will send you pin number and a link to log in to the tribunal.

@Sillydoggy

There are plenty of employers who have rules about not engaging politically. What is different here, I think, is that they are trying to apply it to only one viewpoint. If they had a policy of 'no political engagement' that would be acceptable. Of course CGD didn't have any policy at all at the time Accor to their evidence.

Yes, and they're allowing the alternative political viewpoint free reign, seemingly.

No political engagement would mean on either side of a debate. And yes, it would be spelled out ahead of time when the employment contract was originally entered into.

Yes, I did smile at OD's version averting its gaze from the possibility that there was anything self-inflicted in the mess CGD got themselves in to NecessaryScene.

A big girl did it then ran away. But no! She's now come back to torment us more!

'CGD's case is that the years' long mess that has occupied CGD demonstrates that in MF's case her particular manifestations were so disruptive that risk was foreseeable.'

But they did this themselves. The 'mess' is entirely of their own making.

@nauticant

Yes, I did smile at OD's version averting its gaze from the possibility that there was anything self-inflicted in the mess CGD got themselves in to NecessaryScene.

A big girl did it then ran away. But no! She's now come back to torment us more!

Yes JoodyBlue it is interesting to see companies who say 'you can't engage with political views but I can' . I imagine they would have trouble with that in an employment tribunal.

I was wondering about the last part where she said she wants to use her remaining time to reply to what Ben Cooper will say- will he have the same option if he doesn't use all of his allotted time with his statements? Some of the things she said need rebutting!

'There are plenty of employers who have rules about not engaging politically.'

Private sector employers? Civil service is different, I think. But I'm not sure a private sector employer could have a policy saying I couldn't be a member of a political party.

I think BC is going home to work on his rebuttals right now. :)

What - Ha! That’s all he needs. Of a quizzical head tilt and raise one eyebrow.

@MoonOnASpoon

having gender dysphoria is not something to be cured.

But I thought transactivists were demanding the NHS provide trans people with all the "trans healthcare" i.e. hormones and surgery they want immediately so as to meet their needs and save them from suicide?

Yes. I think you'll find that is due to the transphobic society we live in exerting pressure that trans people have to try and alter their bodies to suit their inner self. Because of course inner 'femininity' is best expressed with a pair of fake breasts. But society is taking huge strides forward in accepting the feminine penis.

I think Helen Joyce and the Economist is a good example of how they could have handled it.

Around the same time Maya was tweeting, or maybe a bit later, Helen changed her Twitter handle from "HJoyceEcon" to "HJoyceGender" and she made various edits to her bio over time. It doesn't currently have any "Economist" indications - it says "Author of book about gender-ID ideology, tweeting in personal capacity." But I believe leading up to book release, there was still an Economist reference.

Helen makes no secret of the fact she works for the Economist, but she makes clear that this is her personal account, dedicated to a subject she is devoted to.

CGD did ask Maya to do the same, and they could have stopped there.

The Economist was extremely supporting of Helen as an individual, despite not having any corporate approval of her position. (Although they have published articles by others that she would approve of, eg on child treatment). They didn't pay for her to write her book, or help her publish it, but they did at least let her take a sabbatical to do so, which is more than generous.

Now, who's suffered reputational damage by their handling here? I would suggest it's not the Economist.

I really did dislike the suggestion from OD that gender dysphoria is one thing having one cause and one solution. But she's not out of line with the permitted thinking and speech on this particular issue.

Political engagement is more than just being a party member. In private companies it will include rules about talking to journalists, expressing opinions etc. They often have social media policies so yes they do have rules about how vocal you can be externally. I have no idea if it is legal but they definitely do it.

I think BC is going home to work on his rebuttals right now.

Just stop it, you filthy lot.

@NecessaryScene

I think BC is going home to work on his rebuttals right now.

Just stop it, you filthy lot.

I really did dislike the suggestion from OD that gender dysphoria is one thing having one cause and one solution. But she's not out of line with the permitted thinking and speech on this particular issue.

Well, it's not even a solution, is it, cos it's not a problem.

It's more like a religious procedure, perhaps? Like a ritual circumcision?

So demanding an alternative to puberty blockers + cross-sex hormones is like demanding an alternative to circumcision and confirmation.

'Political engagement is more than just being a party member. In private companies it will include rules about talking to journalists, expressing opinions etc. They often have social media policies so yes they do have rules about how vocal you can be externally. I have no idea if it is legal but they definitely do it.'

Yes, of course, but two issues there. One would be how reasonable that is and how well it would stand up in court. The other would be the way in which, even given reassurances by MF that she would tone things down on her Twitter and not talk about the issue at work, they still didn't explore this with her and continued straight through.

I so want to watch BC’s submissions tomorrow, but alas I am myself in court for work, so no sneaky listening in while writing reports like I was this afternoon. I think it’ll be a masterpiece of summing up. I just love watching people who are so fiercely intelligent and eloquent, it’s almost like art.

I find the whole area of employment law quite baffling.

I know so many people who constantly have to re-apply for their jobs. Particularly in academia and think tanks it's not unusual to have to apply for grant funding to fund your position and to be on bridging contracts in the interim.

And a number of workplaces have people who are employees and have to demonstrate that they've generated [X] income or made [Y] savings to bottom line.

The issue that is concerning me is the extent to which ideas are now considered or not WORIADS. My understanding is that until quite recently only truly heinous (unspeakable) beliefs/ideas that are seriously prejudicial to individuals or entire groups fell under this category. Even if GC arguments are now legally accepted as WORIADS, if no-one can own up to holding them and still earn a living, if this case sets any sort of precedent, then we are all silenced henceforth. We are in that place in which we cannot speak.

The Economist was extremely supporting of Helen as an individual, despite not having any corporate approval of her position. (Although they have published articles by others that she would approve of, eg on child treatment).

I think they published a long read article of hers about this quite early on.

Quite intrigued by the aspect of OD's argument that seems to be, 'MF didn't even work for CGD, wasn't being paid, and was just a jobbing contractor, and wasn't going to work for them again anyway'.

So why give a shit about her tweets, then?

Why commission all those reports?

I think they published a long read article of hers about this quite early on.

Are you sure? (I'm not trusting you today for some unaccountable reason.)

I seem to recall her saying recently that she'd never written on the topic for them. But maybe she meant since she started campaigning herself? Was it research for that article that started setting some journalistic alarm bells off, so she returned to it as a campaigner?

Still, the articles a magazine or paper publishes aren't to be taken as their actual institutional view, apart from the editorial. (Old-fashioned perspective, perhaps).

On OD's point that gender-dysphoria isn't an illness and so can't be cured... A few Jan 22 news articles (in The Times -amongst others) suggest that prison has cured it for some transwomen.

It seems that they left after serving sentence in women's prisons and were cured enough to de-transition.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

Quite intrigued by the aspect of OD's argument that seems to be, 'MF didn't even work for CGD, wasn't being paid, and was just a jobbing contractor, and wasn't going to work for them again anyway'.

So why give a shit about her tweets, then?

Why commission all those reports?

Exactly. If any contractor isn't doing what you want you just don't use them any more.

You don't commission 3 reports and then tell everyone it was down to their belief in X,Y or Z.

They are the ones that behaved as if she was employed!