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.

@Awkwardy

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

Summary of both sides closing arguments

It missed out the misinterpretation of the Asher’s Cake ruling which I would have thought of interest for those whose interest in this case is primarily the legal aspects. It doesn’t protect against association but protects a person being forced to actively participate in a belief they don’t agree with.

They were happy to make a cake but not a cake with a message in icing they didn’t agree with. Maya wasn’t asking them to put out banners and signs or to actively participate or promote that material sex is immutable.

I have to say though I still struggle with facts framed as a philosophical belief system. It’s like saying we believe in gravity or we believe we have hearts that beat or we believe it’s possible to have a liver transplant. Facts are not beliefs. It doesn’t matter if I believe or don’t believe, the facts exist regardless.

@tabbycatstripy do you have all your notes of the closing arguments transcript somewhere I can read in one document? I was at work and missed it and keen to catch up!

@PerkyBlinder I completely agree with them being facts not beliefs! But then I also think atheism is a fact not a belief... And I can't see that being written into law anytime soon.

I have to say though I still struggle with facts framed as a philosophical belief system. It’s like saying we believe in gravity or we believe we have hearts that beat or we believe it’s possible to have a liver transplant. Facts are not beliefs. It doesn’t matter if I believe or don’t believe, the facts exist regardless.

The way I see it is that the immutability of sex is a scientific fact, but there is a false ideological belief that sex isn't definable because it's a "spectrum", so the "belief" in the reality and importance of sex is due to the existence of this false belief. Gender critical feminism is also an ideological belief that "gender identity" doesn't trump sex. Just my take.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I have to say though I still struggle with facts framed as a philosophical belief system. It’s like saying we believe in gravity or we believe we have hearts that beat or we believe it’s possible to have a liver transplant. Facts are not beliefs. It doesn’t matter if I believe or don’t believe, the facts exist regardless.

The way I see it is that the immutability of sex is a scientific fact, but there is a false ideological belief that sex isn't definable because it's a "spectrum", so the "belief" in the reality and importance of sex is due to the existence of this false belief. Gender critical feminism is also an ideological belief that "gender identity" doesn't trump sex. Just my take.

I see it more that is a fact that sex is binary but a belief that it (and not gender identity) matters

The difficulty I think its that the gender critical position is in fact a testable scientific one so the belief is based on the current state of knowledge and not all possible states of knowledge

( I would really really love to challenge a TRA social scientist and agree a way of testing the GC position empirically)

It doesn't even matter whether sex is binary or not. Functionally it is, as that's why it evolved in the first place as a binary system, but being drawn into arguments about whether DSDs etc make it a spectrum is unnecessary.

Ethnicity/race/skin colour is a spectrum, disability is a spectrum, age is a spectrum. But in these cases that doesn't mean that identifying as being on a totally different part of the spectrum from where you are, actually puts you there.

In RL, I am not a joiner-inner and I don't take part in "GC" meetings or events publicly, partly to protect my career. IO dig for victory and discuss things on here. I am critical of gender stereotypes, but don't wave a GC flag as it were. But what I do do is appeal to scientific/empirical evidence as a the best basis for all my views. I simply can't believe TWAW because I haven't been able to find the proper, verified, controlled, peer-reviewed and widely accepted, scientific evidence. If and when I can, I'm happy to change my view.

IME this is a good stance because it doesn't appear to put you on a "side" of a "belief" battle. And you're not - it's not about "belief" - but GC views are typically represented as "beliefs" in this debate. If you simply take the stance "I follow the science" it can help extricate you from the "belief" paradigm.

Useful summary in the Law Society Gazette above.
It is annoying the fact that many trans people don't change sex is treated as a belief.

Instead it is more like a society says everyone is the same height even thought they are not. Jane goes to work and says she is taller than Mary - a fact and is sacked for it.

We are in an Emperor's New Clothes situation in a sense, although women - over half the UK - are at last realising this matters.

IME this is a good stance because it doesn't appear to put you on a "side" of a "belief" battle. And you're not - it's not about "belief"

I think in some contexts it has to be expressed as a belief because there isn't a legal mechanism for asserting a fact.

Many of us wish we could just rely on the science. It's truly astonishing how many leading sceptic scientists and medics have signed up to non-science in this discussion.

I think in some contexts it has to be expressed as a belief because there isn't a legal mechanism for asserting a fact.

Yes exactly.

A lovely little woodland theatre announced a new show on Instagram this week. Should somebody tell them?

Those bloody nazis get everywhere!

I understand it does have to be expressed as a belief in some contexts. The “science” stance is more helpful in informal situations. When faced with a scientist or someone arguing the supposed science case, I say that to believe it I need clear, valid scientific evidence and logical reasoning. They can’t provide any reference to anything properly researched or validated that shows trans people are inherently different from anyone else, or that anyone can change sex, because it isn’t there.

On another level though, a faith-based level, I suppose it is a belief in that much like god, it can’t be disproved that you have a special gendered “soul” that somehow “should” have been in an opposite-sex body. I think that’s a faith-based belief but I have to accept it could be true in the same way that god, reincarnation etc could be true. But in a pluralist and democratic society, unevidenced, faith-based belief are personal and should be respected as the person’s feeling, but not used to impose rules on others.

Also if that’s the case it doesn’t explain non-binary (and “nullification” surgery), as you can’t be born in the “wrong” body if there isn’t a body type that “matches” your gender soul.

Courts can't start making rulings on matters of science. That's what happened before science. They can say something is a very common and ordinary belief supported by many eminent scientists, but I'd say that's as far as I actually want them to go.

But courts do make decisions, and laws are made, on the basis of reality which is often decided via science. Hence scientific expert witnesses. If you throw reality out as a basis, what is law?

Of course laws can take beliefs into account but the belief does not form the material of the law (in the UK). Instead the law is that someone has a belief and that they should not be discriminated against for it, and can have reasonable allowances made - in balance with other people’s rights, needs and beliefs.

Courts make decisions based on what is legal in light of established facts in front of the judge. They don't make decisions about objective truth. I think that's the right balance.

But courts do make decisions, and laws are made, on the basis of reality which is often decided via science. Hence scientific expert witnesses. If you throw reality out as a basis, what is law?

In this case, you would have had scientific research carried out first to determine if a human could change sex. There would first be broad agreement established on what outcome would prove that sex had changed, etc, and what process would stand a reasonable chance of achieving that.

None of that would happen via court. Courts might have to determine the legality of any part of it.

As tabby says, they are not there to determine scientific fact.

Forgive me if this question has already been asked and answered. I'd like to know how the ET judgement will be delivered: will it just be as a written statement or will there be a tribunal session in which the judge verbally delivers the judgement?

I am not sure about employment tribunal judgment. I think in difficult cases they may be issued in writing weeks later (like many other courts), but I might be wrong.

Just wanting to add that Maya said on the last Sex Matters email roundup that this case has so far cost £250,000. One quarter of a million pounds.

Let that fuel our anger that we've had to do that to have some basic rights. Outfuckingraged here.

I think this will be delivered in writing.

@Awkwardy

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

Summary of both sides closing arguments

The idea that the first hearing found her views (that people cannot change biological sex) did not meet the criterion of being ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’ is chilling. Outrageous given the amount of rife sexism and misogyny present in so many / most organisations.

And chilling too that the defendant tried to argue that requiring an employer to ‘maintain its association with someone who is expressing beliefs and opinions that they do not want to express’ is compelled speech.

That feels so authoritarian. So no employee is ever allowed to voice any view counter to their employer for fear of being fired? So silencing. It also seems to take the argument used by people concerned about the rapid proliferation of pronouns and turns it against them.

Maya has screenshots of some of the misleading tweets around her case by a bluetick bearded director of an NGO, an MP and the fox killer
mforstater.medium.com/the-sound-of-silence-d18e995c0855

Interesting observation by Maya that the professionals who politely debated Pip Bunce on twitter 3 years ago, wouldn't do it now

@DERFDogmaExlusionary

Interesting observation by Maya that the professionals who politely debated Pip Bunce on twitter 3 years ago, wouldn't do it now

It's interesting if the financial cost of this is worth it to the various employers and they're entirely confident that other funders will sufficiently admire them for their stance that this is acceptable. Even when it undermines an organisation's reputation for bold thinking and fearlessness and is an organisation's equivalent of putting a sign in the grocery window.

@tabbycatstripy

Courts make decisions based on what is legal in light of established facts in front of the judge. They don't make decisions about objective truth. I think that's the right balance.

That’s a really good clarification. Thank you.