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.

'My point is that there are many things which can be twisted out of context to make it look like the person is expressing "hate" or prejudice for a group of people. Some of the GC writing expressing concern about queer theory in schools could be painted as that.'

I agree entirely. I think it should be perfectly possible to say 'I think the promotion of queer theory in schools is a disgrace, politically partisan and a risk to children' without it being said to be discriminatory.

I am not sure you can say gender fluidity is a 'perverted vision' without it being reasonably read as pejorative.

But we will see.

'So that could make it difficult to argue that it's an unacceptable term?'

Exactly. Cross-dressing was under the trans 'umbrella' when she spoke.

Not that, even if it wasn't, that would automatically be pejorative in my mind. The word describes an act but pronounces no value judgment.

Exactly. Cross-dressing was under the trans 'umbrella' when she spoke.

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 Part 4 s11 (7) A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgendered identity if the person is... (d) a person who cross-dresses

I agree entirely. I think it should be perfectly possible to say 'I think the promotion of queer theory in schools is a disgrace, politically partisan and a risk to children' without it being said to be discriminatory.

Yes, me too, and I think you ought to be able to say that some of it (individually not blanket) it meets the technical criteria for grooming in a safeguarding sense.

But I can see how these concerns could be painted as a hate crime, especially if the language wasn't very very careful indeed.

Hate speech rather than a hate crime, you know what I mean!

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was a hate crime (for a start she wasn't in Scotland and it was before 2021). I was pointing out the term 'cross-dressing' wasn't just part of Stonewall's umbrella, it is also used in UK legislation. So how can the term itself be abusive is used in this way?

No it was me, I was correcting my own sentence.

I think there are many people who would say that Bunce is trans.

Bunce is an interesting case. Bunce's self-declaration of gender fluid/non-binary gets Bunce the honorary status of trans (although perhaps only sometimes rather than all of the time), because those identities fall under the trans umbrella. But it is bigoted to say that Bunce's actual activity of cross-dressing means he's a cross-dresser, ie also under the trans umbrella.

It is all rather Schrödinger.

Women saying words that are in actual UK legislation are getting into trouble, so why is that?

I'm beginning to wonder if it's because women can be portrayed - fairly successfully, it seems - as inherently flawed and in need of correction, thus more likely to fall into troublesome speech. Which itself is pretty Biblical, if you think about it.

'Yes that's the statute, but when you said it you did it hatefully.'

'Yes that's the statute, but when you said it you did it hatefully.'

That same thought had just come to me a minute ago. Someone can call themself X, "allies" can call them X, but if you or I were to call them X, then that would be hateful because we don't see X as being the status that must be elevated that the others do.

Yes, 'cross-dressing' is what BC called a 'non-evaluative term', and that sounds right to me. Not saying anything bad about cross-dressing, but to a person who doesn't believe in 'gender identity' (like me) that's what it is. A cross-dresser is someone who dresses up in what they see as the clothing and style of the opposite sex. Perfectly within their rights to do so, nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't mean they changed sex.

Some of them may not like the term but it really doesn't mean I mean anything bad by it.

But 'pervert' or 'perversity' (when not describing something wilfully misplaced) presents more of a problem because it is evaluative.

'Bunce is an interesting case. Bunce's self-declaration of gender fluid/non-binary gets Bunce the honorary status of trans (although perhaps only sometimes rather than all of the time), because those identities fall under the trans umbrella. But it is bigoted to say that Bunce's actual activity of cross-dressing means he's a cross-dresser, ie also under the trans umbrella.'

Which, of course, it's not. It's just a description of activities. As a GC person I don't recognise the claims of 'identity' (I don't know what it means) so can only describe what someone is doing.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I agree entirely. I think it should be perfectly possible to say 'I think the promotion of queer theory in schools is a disgrace, politically partisan and a risk to children' without it being said to be discriminatory.

Yes, me too, and I think you ought to be able to say that some of it (individually not blanket) it meets the technical criteria for grooming in a safeguarding sense.

Yes. Agree.

Creating an environment in which people (women) are scared to raise safeguarding concerns - scared they may lose their job or be called a 'bigot' or otherwise suffer harm - is a safeguarding failure.

Adequate safeguarding relies on people being free to raise concerns.

Creating an environment in which people (women) are scared to raise safeguarding concerns - scared they may lose their job or be called a 'bigot' or otherwise suffer harm - is a safeguarding failure.

Agreed. We're creating an environment that countermands every piece of rhetoric about safeguarding being the business of everyone.

I do recognise self-identity claims tabbycatstripy, it's just that I don't consider them to be significant, and certainly not significant enough to mean that society has to be re-ordered.

To me one thing that's missing from much of the debate is what is signficant rather than being deflected into a pseudo-discussion in which lack of recognition of self-declared identities is characterised by some as erasing someone's existence.

'I do recognise self-identity claims tabbycatstripy, it's just that I don't consider them to be significant, and certainly not significant enough to mean that society has to be re-ordered.'

I don't mean I mind them. I'm (for the most part) happy for people to do whatever they like. But I recognise that factually, there is no evidence for them. I don't want government policy made based on them except where it doesn't negatively affect others.

Agreed. We're creating an environment that countermands every piece of rhetoric about safeguarding being the business of everyone.

Definitely. Like when some women wrote to Girl Guiding and GG reported them to the police.

@chilling19

Managed to get on this morning. Fascinating.

One point has struck me - if Maya loses because they deem she was not employed, surely the implication will be that if she had been, she would have won?

Thus, the line in the sand will still be drawn re freedom of expression regardless?

Maya - thank you. 🍷

Apologies if this has already been fully answered, but it will depend on the Judge. If they decide she was not employed and the claim fails there, some Judges will just leave it at that and dodge the rest of the issues, which would be very disappointing here. Other Judges will choose to go on to address the other issues. In a case like this where there is clear public interest in the issues, the Judge might be more minded to say "but had she been employed then I would have made the following findings on the issues of x, y, z".

It will be very disappointing if the Judge chooses to duck the remaining issues, if Maya fails at the first hurdle of employee status.

The decision at this level is not binding on other tribunals at this level will be known as 'persuasive but not binding' meaning Judges can have regard to it in other cases but they don't have to follow it.

I've just realised that the 'pronouns are rohypnol' article did not feature in this tribunal. It was one of the things which caused a to-do after the first one, because maya had retweeted it. Was that after she left?

Shiloh thanks for that. I really hope the judge doesn't leave it there if he decides she wasn't employed.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Agreed. We're creating an environment that countermands every piece of rhetoric about safeguarding being the business of everyone.

Definitely. Like when some women wrote to Girl Guiding and GG reported them to the police.

Exactly. Adequate safeguarding, the type of safeguarding that's taught to governors and school employees up and down the country, relies on people being able to raise concerns without fear. Now, those concerns may be investigated and found to be without any evidence or merit, that's fine. But when the person bringing the concern is hounded and abused, then they (and the people witnessing the hounding and abuse) are unlikely to raise concerns again.

It's a real problem.

Safeguarding is being undermined.

chilling, I think someone rightly said above it is not only if she were an employee that she wins as the rules apply to workers too or something along those lines - the law that protects her following her EAT win as having her right to her view does not only protect PAYE employees.

Xenia and also protects her during recruitment.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/too-ready-to-take-offence-forstater-tribunal-hears-closing-arguments/5111995.article

Summary of both sides closing arguments