Forstater judgment tomorrow

[achillestoes]

In case we hadn’t had enough drama.

Good luck, Maya.

I think consistent misgendering would be seen as harassment. Yes, people can be compelled to say a male person is a woman. Even in court. You are supposed to lie out of politeness.

I am happy to call people a woman or man if they can define it appropriately. Until then I am unsure as to what the word means if it isn't the dictionary definition.

This is appallingly Orwellian.

The belief that a male person can be a woman is a political belief which has no basis in reality.

How can we be in a situation where people are compelled to lie - even in court - and pretend they hold a particular political belief?

I use their names and never anything else. Apparently this is "transparent and we all see what you are doing".

I have no idea what that means, but they don't seem too pleased.

And not a single fuck do I give about that.

I'm another who was radicalised by Mumsnet. Came through a google search when I was job hunting, stayed for the Classics and radical feminism.

As someone who's been a mod of a big forum previously, I take off my hat to the @MNHQ mods - I've seen some of the stuff that can go on behind the scenes and it would have been nothing like the hassle that must have been caused (and no doubt still is) by those who take it upon themselves to monitor us. It's a fine line to tread between clearly wanting to allow freedom of speech and not wanting to drown under complaints, negative PR and possible legal action.

MN has played - and is still playing - such an important part of the fight for womens' rights and we've had to compromise so as not to jeopardise our space to communicate. But I do hope that some of the unwritten rules on what we can and can't say will now be relaxed.

Likewise, I will no longer define myself as a woman until the meaning changes back to what it was in the hundreds of years before.

I am a female, but if woman = feeling in head then I've no idea what I'd feel like if I wasn't one!

“Employers should be clear, however, that while gender-critical views are considered a philosophical belief protected under discrimination law, it does not mean that people with such beliefs can misgender trans persons. Employers need to provide a safe environment free from harassment and discrimination for all employees, including both trans persons and those with gender critical beliefs.”

I consider such concerns to be misplaced as to the behaviour and actions of the people at the heart of various legal actions and who have frequently, and in great detail, been questioned as to what they did and what their intentions are for the future.

I wonder if the commentator thinks that employers might need to consider that some people have jobs in services/occupations where correct identification of a sex class is essential. There may well be intersections where some might regard that as misgendering although others might consider gender identity irrelevant to a decision that is grounded in sex.

There will certainly be public-facing roles where the employer creates guidelines and policies for how that organisation handles the preferences etc. of service users, clients etc.

For people without public-facing roles and who are in a different workspace, I wonder why it's so unthinkable for employers to consider creating a work environment where:

• people are comfortable to 'widen the bandwidth of what it means to be a member of a sex class' without


• insisting on an idiosyncratic preference that others must share and fully participate in that immersive reality.

Consistent misgendering is harassment, agreed. But I think any court would be ill-advised to insist that anyone giving evidence was forced to use the wrong sex or pronouns if they didn't want to. That would be compelled speech.

The problem is that they want the word female too now.

Yes. Someone was on here a little while ago saying that TWAW because a woman is a "female person" and "female" included "female gender identity". Obviously we asked for a definition of "female gender identity", since words are supposed to mean things and we can define female as a sex class. We got insults, we got accusations, but we never got a frigging definition.

I agree that constant misgendering would be wrong. Though I thought the Bench Book had been updated about that?

But this part of the quote (to add a new dimension) if someone was claiming to be "gender fluid" at work, would be a flash point:

"...it does not mean that people with such beliefs can misgender trans persons."

It's clear you can't be male one day, female the next. But gender fluidity has been promoted by SW, GIRES et al. It doesn't exist in law but some believe it does. So employers would need to follow the actual law to avoid that kind of workplace issue ie you cannot be gender fluid as there's no legal obligation for the employer to recognise it.

‘Employers should be clear, however, that while gender-critical views are considered a philosophical belief protected under discrimination law, it does not mean that people with such beliefs can misgender trans persons. Employers need to provide a safe environment free from harassment and discrimination for all employees, including both trans persons and those with gender critical beliefs.’

I agree that constant and gratuitous ‘misgendering’ could be regarded as harassment. If you don’t believe someone can insist on sex-incongruent pronouns (as I don’t) then you should do your best to avoid using pronouns.

But this view above has not yet been fully tested in the courts at the highest level. I believe the Mackereth judgment imposes compelled speech and I expect it to be overturned. Pronouns aren’t part of law, they are an arbitrary demand, an appropriation of the use of parts of language that should rightly rest with the speaker.

Does this mean the end of preferential treatment for all the LBGT+++ workplace organisations? Surely employers are liable if they only consult them on for example toilets, badges as they have done in the past.

I tend to just use 'they' as a pronoun and quite prepared to call someone by their preferred name to their face but that's just courtesy.

‘I tend to just use 'they' as a pronoun and quite prepared to call someone by their preferred name to their face but that's just courtesy.’

Some people are very aggressive about the use of ‘they’ when they’ve asked for ‘she’ or ‘he’, but I think that’s a step too far myself.

I'm willing to use a person's name or avoid where possible using a word the person has expressed they are not comfortable with. I am not willing to use words I don't believe or agree with however, and I expect this to be a reciprocal social contract, ie not insisting on calling me 'cis' or anything else. Otherwise forget it.

What the activist political lobby is trying to fudge here is that when women are forced to stand up for their rights, ie to have an accessible toilet, it is necessary to use the words and speech of reality. ie, however x feels and identifies, the fact is that x is male, and this makes this place inaccessible to others.

The attempt to try and force 'misgendering' as banned is essentially to prevent women being able to defend their rights. And that is what Maya stood up for.

If you force women to the discourtesy they will need to be very plain about sex. The answer is not to stomp all over them, their needs, their rights, and force them to the point of having to say things you do not wish to hear. Not wail, whine and demand legal recourse to prevent them, when you are jumping up and down on their toes in size thirteen pit boots, from saying "get off my toes, you're hurting me". This is not hate speech. This is a need for a political lobby to accept the limits of their choices ends at other people's rights, and this is about equality. Not primacy.

‘If you force women to the discourtesy they will need to be very plain about sex.’

Yes we will. I’ll avoid it if I can but a law that says I can’t mention it is unacceptable to me.

I generally respect preferred pronouns, although you can't force me to believe them.

I'll have to get clunky to avoid using them when referring to someone who has blatantly exploited their male advantage in a female space, whatever that may be. Respect goes both ways and if you treat women like dirt, I don't see why I should have to respect what you want female to be when it suits you.

But this view above has not yet been fully tested in the courts at the highest level. I believe the Mackereth judgment imposes compelled speech and I expect it to be overturned. Pronouns aren’t part of law, they are an arbitrary demand, an appropriation of the use of parts of language that should rightly rest with the speaker

I realise this thread is not about this but jumping in any way to say
There are some persons with different pronouns on different days ( this is not hyperbole, am sure we can all think of one person at least who dresses as they see fit each day, some days female, some days male)
Pips isnt the only one who has different pronouns, so anyway if such a person was to be in court because of some crime they committed, how would anyone know which pronouns to use? On the day of the alleged crime they may have been female, on the day in court they may be male or fae or ze? I can see much confusion.

It should just be a matter of politeness not a legal and losing your job issue as to what you call people. I wouldn't want to upset anyone and if James came into work in a dress and said he was now Janet I might just call him Janet to keep him happy. However if someone insisted on calling that person he I don't think they should sacked for it- instead Janet/James should just get a tougher skin and suck it up just as most of us put up with all kinds of things said about and to us - even my water meter reader man was using some pretty old fashioned terms this week - cannot remember now but something like darling or lovey or something a bit strange but it was no big deal .

Those who change from day to day cannot expect anyone to take them seriously or call them consistently by the right name.

Hmmm I somewhat disagree with this. If someone consistently called me love or darling even though I strongly objected to it I’d be really fucked off. Not enough to think that they should be fired but I do think respect in the workplace is important. If James wants to be called Janet it doesn’t really make a difference to you and I think people should be able to give each other a basic level of respect

@ShirleyPhallus

Using someone’s preferred name isn’t necessarily an issue (although in the workplace I think you should have an official name change, not just come in and say “everyone, I’m Janet today”). Pronouns are different. They indicate my perceptions, and are not the other person’s to dictate.

I don’t think it takes much to be respectful to someone else and if they asked you to use “they” instead of “he” I think IRL you’d come across as a bit of an arse if you went out of your way to still say “he”, even if you secretly thought it was a load of old tosh (as I do)

@ShirleyPhallus
I think you've misread - Xenia was talking about the colleague not using Janet/James's preferred pronouns., not their chosen name.

FWIW, @Xenia , you've described my attitude exactly. Janet is a name, James is entirely within their rights to choose a new name and it wouldn't bother me to use the new name. Pronouns are different.
IMO it's not a courtesy to use preferred pronouns - it's a kindness, something you do privately for loved ones. Calling it a courtesy implies that a person has a right to impose new rules of grammar (no such right exists) or that they have changed sex (impossible). I honestly don't see how a workplace can have a lawful policy which insists on observing preferred pronouns. It's not neutral or live and let live. It's actively favouring one philosophical belief over another.

I don’t think it takes much to be respectful to someone else and if they asked you to use “they” instead of “he” I think IRL you’d come across as a bit of an arse if you went out of your way to still say “he”, even if you secretly thought it was a load of old tosh (as I do)

There's an interesting piece on the pronouns issue by the Legal Feminist: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/04/26/grammar-and-grievance/

Just wanted to say if anyone wishes to support Maya and what she is doing, you can join Sex Matters and become a monthly subscriber. You even get a nifty mug 😀

Another thing that bothers me - using pronouns isn't about respect. Taking account of a person's view or preferences is not the same as sharing those views or preferences. What is labelled respect is actually deference.