Forstater judgment tomorrow

[achillestoes]

In case we hadn’t had enough drama.

Good luck, Maya.

Well I've used this ruling to get the manager of the inclusion group to agree that inclusion = all viewpoints if expressed reasonably.

I said it's not really inclusion otherwise.

She agreed!

It a really good point about the use of pronouns in big meetings, I think I could use preferred pronouns in someone's presence if they had a clear name swap and opposite presentation but most likely it'd just make me less able to talk. (asd) I'm a bit too Kriten learns to lie

Like any analogy it isn't perfect but this is the best comparison I've come across, much better than mine.

@howdoesatoastermaketoast

I find lying very hard as well. Physically uncomfortable!

@howdoesatoastermaketoast

😂

You can get round the pronoun thing quite easily.

Is the person there?

If yes, address them directly.

"That's a crucial point from David," - turn and face David - "especially what you said about the depletion of government grant in that area. It ties in with Marion's graph where she displayed the rising demand for this service, and how her department's already creaking."

If no, use the person's name to make it clear who you're talking about and then turn it round so you're talking in the first person.

"In our meeting David made a really crucial point about the depletion of government grant in that area", or "I'd like to explore the point David made about the depletion of government grant in that area".

"Has anyone seen David today? I wanted to follow up on the issue of the depletion of government grant in that area."

You: "Is David in today? I wanted to discuss the issue of the depletion of government grant in that area which was raised in our last meeting."
Other colleague: "No, I think he's working from home today."
You: "Oh, no worries, I'll send an email/set up another meeting for next week."

@babyjellyfish

It can be done, but like anything you have to constantly think about, it adds to the cognitive load in a way I genuinely find unacceptable. I don’t think it’s okay - at a fundamental level - to enter a meeting insisting on your colleagues maintaining a fiction.

Well I am going to contribute to this articulate and interesting discussion by saying my pronouns are fuck/this/shit.

PS I loved^^ I like big TEXT and I cannot lie

Indeed or to continually be on edge to try and get it "right" or to notice when they get it "wrong" in order to ensure they "correct" themselves. We are talking about language that is used all the time. It is completely unreasonable to ask people to do this with language this fundamental.

Well, nobody is asking us to avoid the use of third person pronouns.

What they are asking us to do - or rather, trying to criminalise us for not doing - is use the wrong sexed pronouns for someone.

I'm willing to perform a few subtle verbal gymnastics to get out of doing that without being accused of harassment.

‘I'm willing to perform a few subtle verbal gymnastics to get out of doing that without being accused of harassment.’

We shouldn’t have to. I’ll do it because I’m usually nice, but if anyone tries to ‘educate’ me I become much less nice.

Yes. That's it. It's like an unearned title - like someone insisting you call them professor or doctor because they would have liked to have gone to university or medical school.

Conversation about the judgment with Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater.

Helen Joyce's newsletter item about the judgment that gives a timeline of the 3 year odyssey.

www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-12/?mc_cid=13ad22dc83&mc_eid=8ea042b135

Transcript of Maya's R4 Today programme interview about the judgment.

otter.ai/u/ptLA6-IlAStoD9aTpBTjPpelfmc?mc_cid=13ad22dc83&mc_eid=8ea042b135

Oh thanks for posting that link to Helen Joyce's article. That was a truly wonderful read.

I do not have the courage to out myself as gender critical in my life yet as am fearful of employment and social backlash. I am in awe of the courage of those who can and I am in awe of people like Maya, Allison, JK, Helen Joyce, the two Julies, Kathleen Stock and I know I have missed some great women warriors of truth. As well of course in awe of Glinner who has deeply suffered also for his committment to reality.

to you all. You are Giants. All of you.

That bit at the end of Helen Joyce's article made me tear up a bit too. Thanks for posting it

Well done! You right.
I bet there isn't much out there (in the way of resources) for employers/organisations on how to be this type of inclusive organisation. One that values diverse experiences view points opinions and beliefs.

Tbh the reverberations from Mayas appeal - WORIADS -are still only just sinking in.

This latest judgement will be a giant iceberg that quietly, slowly, and surely changes things.

WORIADS and the ability to express the beliefs that are WORIADS.

It's going to be while for HR and workplaces to understand what this means for even-handedness and mutual respect. I wonder if they've been so accustomed to discounting women's rights in a number of areas that they're now finding themselves brought up short to consider wider human rights and realise that they are there to promote good relations between protected characteristics, not to favour one or more particular groups above the others with PCs.

Do you know who should (but won’t) answer for all of this? Judge James Tayler. The first judgment was what a lot of employment law specialists deemed “surprising”. How he reached the conclusion that the simple belief that males and females exist is not WORIADS I’ll never know, but if he hadn’t, so much of the shit endured by women over the last three years wouldn’t have happened. He emboldened trans activists all over the world with his legally illiterate conclusions.

Ah, and who else recalls their sinking feeling on learning that J James Tayler was promoted? To the post of Senior Circuit Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal no less.

www.judiciary.uk/announcements/senior-circuit-judge-of-the-employment-appeal-tribunal-appointment-james-tayler/

Embarrassing.

How he reached the conclusion that the simple belief that males and females exist is not WORIADS I’ll never know, but if he hadn’t, so much of the shit endured by women over the last three years wouldn’t have happened

Do you think so? I have always thought it was an accidental good thing. If his decision hadn’t gone to appeal then WORIADS wouldn’t have been enshrined in law. And the outrage over it galvanised the fightback here and got JKR involved.

I do take your point about it emboldening them but tbh they’re a bunch of mentally colonised barely literate wanksticks who live on the American Internet, so I’m not sure how much influence a British court decision could really have on their psychology. They were emboldened anyway, it’s in the nature of that personality type to keep escalating their abuse until they’re stopped.

This is one of the reasons that Open Justice is focused on Employment Tribunals.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/lack-of-transcripts-prejudices-employment-hearings/5111947.article

There are times when some of the judgments feel like a lottery, irrespective of the complainant being correct about the law, it becomes a matter of what they can finance.

And now J Tayler may be able to make precedent-setting Tier 2 judgments.

Plus, recall that Edward Lord had to be persuaded to recuse himself from an EAT case.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4584264-edward-lord-has-been-recused-from-hearing-a-gender-critical-belief-case

ugh I keep doing that. First paragraph was a quote! But anyway I think Taylor galvanised our side much more than theirs.

@TastefulRainbowUnicorn

Hadn’t thought of it that way! Possibly.