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.

I'm not sure it's helping OD to only refer to MF's views in such prejudicial terms (as if they are something she should have had to apologise for). There's no acknowledgment here that she has every right to hold them because - as noted in the first appeal - they are actually perfectly ordinary.

Mainstream, even.

Sure, but gender dysphoria will have many causes some curable and some not. The way OD presented it if you find gender dysphoria then there is one solution and that's transition.

OD: To say it will be the end of single sex spaces is very extreme and not true.

@nauticant

Sure, but gender dysphoria will have many causes some curable and some not. The way OD presented it if you find gender dysphoria then there is one solution and that's transition.

I agree. Also as I think the WHO only dropped it in 2019, so at the time Maya compared it to anorexia, she was speaking the truth.

To be a barrister you really have to be prepared to say anything, don't you? We should send OD just for having to say some of this silly shit.

The basis of this argument is that MF has been too combative, not apologetic enough, and not mindful enough that some people might disagree with her.

So, Pips Bunce, David Challenor, anorexia and women being murdered are all things that Maya should be kind about.

Am I missing something? Is this just argument just the 14th Rule of Misogyny? That Maya's a woman and she has all the rights she needs, the right to remain silent?

We've got a lot of padding here, haven't we?

'Also as I think the WHO only dropped it in 2019, so at the time Maya compared it to anorexia, she was speaking the truth.'

There is no widely accepted explanation for gender dysphoria, just as there is no widely accepted definition for gender identity. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that it may be a manifestation of being unwell.

You know, I really wasn't expecting this stage of the case to be like this at all. I was expecting the "trans vs women" thing to be largely ignored, having been addressed quite a bit in the earlier stages, and this to be almost entirely about Maya's employment relationship with CGD.

And yet it's turned out to be the complete gender ideology versus women's rights debate played out in court.

Amazing.

If the judge decides she was employed, then I reckon this will be their best bet:
if they were solely manifestations of a protected belief, there is a rights weighing exercise to be done vis-a-vis CGD corporate human rights.
Eg that she was entitled to her beliefs but they were entitled to weigh the specific expression of them against the rights of others. But, there isn't much evidence if an actual rights weighing exercise having taken place. So I'm not sure what the court will make of that.

How is using preferred pronouns being a condition of keeping your job not compelled speech?

Trying to persuade people in their workplace that their lesbian friends shouldn't use the term lesbian if they don't want to include MTF trans people as sex partners, as the QI woman did.

I assume that in oral argument BC will need to follow his written submissions and is not to deviate from them to rebut OD's oral argument that is now being presented.

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?

There is no widely accepted explanation for gender dysphoria, just as there is no widely accepted definition for gender identity. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that it may be a manifestation of being unwell

I think the growing number of detransitioners alone would prove that point.

'Eg that she was entitled to her beliefs but they were entitled to weigh the specific expression of them against the rights of others. But, there isn't much evidence if an actual rights weighing exercise having taken place. So I'm not sure what the court will make of that.'

Yes, it's the lack of unbiased engagement that (I think and hope) might sink them. They didn't ask her about her beliefs. They didn't tell her where they thought the line was. They colluded behind her back. They allowed other employees to 'organise opposition'. They deceived her about the QI report.

There was no objective attempt to balance any rights at all.

@NecessaryScene

You know, I really wasn't expecting this stage of the case to be like this at all. I was expecting the "trans vs women" thing to be largely ignored, having been addressed quite a bit in the earlier stages, and this to be almost entirely about Maya's employment relationship with CGD.

And yet it's turned out to be the complete gender ideology versus women's rights debate played out in court.

Amazing.

Yes! I assumed the previous hearings would've brought all this out and this would be a fairly dry one about what counts as an employee. Yet this has been eye-opening...

@tabbycatstripy

To be a barrister you really have to be prepared to say anything, don't you? We should send OD just for having to say some of this silly shit.

Yes, I think that if I was looking to employ a QC I'd be impressed by this from OD.

She's not rolled her eyes or had to suppress a snort or a giggle once as she presents a lot of flimsy nonsense.

Impressive.

'How is using preferred pronouns being a condition of keeping your job not compelled speech?'

It is, but might (although is not in my view, because I would happily avoid using any pronouns at all rather than use "preferred pronouns" for people breaching my boundaries) be considered to be a reasonable approach to balance of rights. It's still (IMO) to be tested through the courts.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria - yes, she's pretty good.

I don't think her raw material is quite as poor as some people think it is (I think probably Maya did go beyond expression of her core beliefs, I just happen to think she's right and entirely reasonable in her beliefs and these people are zealots).

But I still hope the balance will go in Maya's favour because of their lack of objectivity, mendacity, and letting MF (effectively) be bullied.

I don't think OD is a QC. It's something I introduced very early on and it seems to have stuck. In terms of her capabilities, I see no reason why it shouldn't happen though.

'I think the growing number of detransitioners alone would prove that point.'

Yes, sadly. How can we acknowledge their experiences and help them without referring to dysphoria as a health condition?

Yes, I think that if I was looking to employ a QC I'd be impressed by this from OD.

She's not rolled her eyes or had to suppress a snort or a giggle once as she presents a lot of flimsy nonsense.

Impressive.

Oh yeah, OD is a real pro. No doubt if CGD lose she'll end up with slurs on her competence and misogynistic abuse from some quarters though.

'Valedictory words' - go, Judge Glennie.