Forstater judgment tomorrow

[achillestoes]

In case we hadn’t had enough drama.

Good luck, Maya.

Thanks Datun, that's simple but powerful and has helped clarify my thinking!

This was about not harassing and discriminating against people who hold GC beliefs.

And the verdict says that holding and expressing those beliefs neither harasses nor discriminates or in any way impedes trans people in going about their daily lives. Stonewall need to try believing in a world where everyone is free to be themselves (homosexuals included) and have the same opportunities as everyone else, and to let women and homosexuals go about their lives too without discrimination, harassment and attempts to force them to enact and speak lies.

Pluralist society. Stonewall is starting to look very old fashioned.

Margaret: we need to know if you have an 'A' level in law before we take you seriously.
No-one has the right to discriminate against, or harass, trans people

Take out the word 'trans' and you've reached the truth.

the response from Stonewall
and TRA is the same old, same
old, isn't it? Saying that the judgment doesn't mean you can harass trans people. Was Maya doing that? Of course not. And then the customary tired old pop about
"denying their existence" and wanting to eradicate trans people. Not a
single GC person I've met wants that.
Not one. They respect trans people in the same way they respect everyone. But when your perceived "enemy" is
acting in a very reasonable and
human way and has just won a court case for reasons clear to 99.9% of the population, the only way to respond seems to be attack lie attack
lie attack like attack,
repeat to fade....etc etc

I presume this also applies to political parties?

Very basic misunderstanding of not just the judgment itself, but also about the basics if the case and what an employment tribunal normally does and does not award. A tribunal will only reinstate someone to a job under very very limited conditions (including, whether the person actually wants the job back! Which is usually pretty unlikely at that point.)

You really should educate yourself more on the basics and the facts of the things you comment on, @MargaritaPie. It does make you look really foolish not to.

But I’m glad you posted that little italicised section. We all agree. Replace “trans people” in it with any other protected characteristic and belief — ooh, I don’t know, like “gender critical women”, for example — and you can quite see why the judgment is so important.

You do realise that the tribunal found that Maya was the one discriminated against, and no trans person was remotely involved? As a result, a trans person, or indeed anyone with gender ideology beliefs wishing to take an employer to a tribunal for reasons of discrimination against them because of their gender beliefs, would be able to use her case as a precedent. You’re welcome! 👏

Do you have an A level in law?

You're welcome.

But I'm struck afresh how bloody stupid it is that we even have to say it, to be honest.

Humans can't change sex and under certain, occasional circumstances, women need single sex facilities when they are vulnerable and to address sexism.

It's really, really not very radical.

Yep.

No one has the right to discriminate against, or harass, women.

We can state our views that sex is immutable, sex matters. These views are worthy of respect and protected in law.

I would really really really encourage everyone to read the full judgement- it does a great job of explaining what happened and who said what about what - very clearly sets out the spurious arguments e.g. "Maya calls transgender people 'part-time cross-dressers'" - when she was referring to one specific person who describes themselves fairly similarly and is probably not representative of 'all trans people'.

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-center-for-global-development-masood-ahmed/

Humans can't change sex and under certain, occasional circumstances, women need single sex facilities when they are vulnerable and to address sexism.

It's really, really not very radical.

Aw, and here's me been feeling all daring and edgy for years. 🙁

But you're right, it's a pretty standard, unexciting belief in what most people count as common-sense reality.

I adore the clarity of legal writing.

I wish more documents used the number system to structure the text.

Sorry if this has been asked and answered if it has I missed it. Has her schedule of loss been produced anywhere?

OMG just heard this. Thank you, thank you, thank you Maya ❤️

Also, it needs to be said, that women should not have to be spending tens of thousands of pounds on all of this, hundreds of thousands of hours and dragging common sense and decency before umpteen judges to be ratified, if transactivists hadn't been so bloody batshit extreme in the first place.

What were they thinking supporting violent rapists in women's prisons, for fuck's sake?? Or denying women a place to recover from male violence, or trying to compete against women in sport, or having a fucking dig at FGM??!!

Don't blame women for this fucking mess. They wouldn't ever have gone anywhere near it if it hadn't been for this insanity.

The absolute bloody brass neck of you sitting there winging your hands about how this might be construed as harassment for transwomen??

It seems an odd statement. Of course, the ruling doesn’t affect trans people’s workplace protection, how could it? The case wasn’t about trans people’s workplace protections and trans people were not harassed or discriminated against at Maya’s workplace.

Apologies if anyone's already posted this. Justin Webb noting the good news: twitter.com/justinonweb/status/1544645237498589184?s=21&t=BzFp_3aQB9fXRBWdwTQuXA

Trans people simply want to go about their lives – at school, at work – without discrimination and harassment.

So do women and girls! We want to be able to go to the toilet, change clothes, sleep in hostels, get rape counselling etc without having to share these places with people of the opposite sex. We also want to not be fired if we say to our employers that women's rights matter and that males who identify as women are not female.

Go Justin Webb.

Thanks, Embarrassing - a better reply than my own.

Stonewall tweeting as if they haven’t been arguing that MF isn’t entitled to her philosophical beliefs (eye roll).

MF didn’t harass any trans colleagues. So the statement is irrelevant at best.

I saw this too, I don't think I'm in a position to apply unfortunately but I really want to

Stonewall tweeting with replies turned off. Plus ca change.

I was reading this today and think its very useful sex matters guide to pronouns at work it dates back to the woriads ruling.

From the above leaflet...

What to do if your pronouns are requested

"The simplest thing is to decline in a low-key manner. You do not need to explain why. Simply refrain from putting pronouns in your biography or your email signature and don’t announce them at meetings. If invited to, say ‘No thank you’ and if asked why, say something bland like ‘It is not a practice I follow’. Employers should recognise that not everyone has the same beliefs, and that cultural rituals should not be imposed on people with demands that they explain themselves if they decline. For example, a work team might toast a success with champagne. If one colleague declines to drink alcohol it might be because of their religion, because they are pregnant, because they are a recovering alcoholic, because they are on medication or for any number of personal reasons. A simple ‘No thank you’ should be accepted without question – similarly with an invitation to state your pronouns."