Forstater judgment tomorrow

[achillestoes]

In case we hadn’t had enough drama.

Good luck, Maya.

Link to Jolyon tweet

"For members of the trans community, and their allies, concerned about the Forstater judgment, we believe this to be an accurate analysis of the law."

"(And, in case it helps, we're also working on a significant intervention on the issue, details to follow.)"

So everyone’s blaming CGD, then.

Even without Lucy Van Pelt (thrown out of RoF without due process), there's a reasonable discussion of the Forstater result there.

www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/maya-forstater-unlawfully-discriminated-against-holding-protected-gender-critical

"For members of the trans community, and their allies, concerned about the Forstater judgment, we believe this to be an accurate analysis of the law."

As for Maugham, this may be interesting. However, in whose legal knowledge and experience do you believe. Peter Daly (as quoted upthread) or Jess O'Thomson?

Jess O'Thomson is a law student and activist at the University of Cambridge, with a focus on trans and disabled human rights. They have campaigned extensively for the rights of trans and disabled individuals, particularly students. They continue to develop their expertise in trans and disability human rights law. They conduct legal research and reporting for TSN.

transsafety.network/posts/dont-overblow-forstater/

TS Eliot's essay, The Hero Cheering Himself Up, famously claimed that Othello (and, in particular, for the suicide speech) was one in a line of foolish heroes who progress from dignity and a polyphonic voice to foolishness, a profound loss of dignity, and an inability to see beyond the self.

An intervention into a legal judgement.

Mhm.

Particularly with the GLP's recent track record.

So everyone’s blaming CGD, then.

hahaha, it serves them right.

Seriously, people need to start understanding that’s what you get when you’re an “ally to the trans community.” Don’t assume the “trans community” will show you loyalty or gratitude. They will turn on you without mercy as soon as they get narked about something. And they’re always narked about something.

Btw am planning a significant intervention with BoJo tomorrow, I'll be turning him around and popping the country back on track my way. Because democracy and law and stuff like that ... whatever. I obvs know better.

And then I'll intervene with Putin and sort out global warming, again to suit me personally, but the diary's free for Monday. Unless I decide in the meantime that I think that a few other bits of law and other people's rights are a bit irritating to me and go and tell the British justice system that they need to do what I say. <cracks knuckles>

The summary posted by Maugham seems to enter into the same fallacious reasoning as most of the trans activist crowd: that it’s possible to legally ‘protect’ a belief but not protect the basic expression of that belief. It’s true that belief and manifestation are treated separately in law, and that’s correct, because some people choose to manifest their beliefs in ways that constitute harassment or abusive speech. But (clearly) what is never expressed in any way requires no protection and benefits from no protection, so it can’t be the case that a belief can be ‘protected’, but all manifestations of that belief unprotected. It must in fact be the case that a civil and factual expression of a protected belief, absent any other aggravating factors, has some protection in law.

The writer of that piece says (outraged) that the logic of Forstater 2 would mean a teacher could say on their Facebook that they don’t think gay people should be allowed to teach and face no consequences.

Well, is that part of a protected belief? Would that belief meet the Grainger criteria? I don’t think it would. Where is its cogency and cohesion? What logic would lie behind it? It wouldn’t be a religious belief. It wouldn’t be a scientific belief. It would (surely) just be a prejudice.

In contrast, a belief that same sex couples shouldn’t marry (if grounded in religious belief) is protected, does meet the Grainger criteria, and you can’t be fired for it.

An intervention into a legal judgement.

well, perhaps it’s not likely to succeed, exactly but maybe it has enough legal standing to be the basis of a crowdfunder. And in that case, who can really define success, you know? Maybe the real success lies in the hearts and pockets of the trans community uniting to tilt together at the same windmill.

😁👌

To be fair to Maugham, he did declare that a legal victory before he had to face up to reality and declare the judgment only a loss in the “deeply technical sense”.

thecritic.co.uk/bad-law-project/

And yet we are still allowed to just say "the Queen" or "Liz" or even "Brenda", if you're Private Eye. We don't have to say "her majesty", or call her "good Queen Bess".

True, and yet the language and deference would be enforced if you were ever to (be foolish enough to) accept an honour that required you to meet Brenda (or more likely Brian, nowadays) to receive it. Dame Bella has a good ring to it, though!

Anyone else listen to this?

The gist is there needs to be robust employment policies to ensure women can be shut up or sacked if they won't. As it was CGD's lack of policies & unprofessionalism that resulted in Maya's victory.

I expect there'll be renewed vigour to get employment policies tightened up.

And if your employment policy is discriminatory to people who do not hold the prescribed genderpolitical views, the woman in question will still be entitled to a compensation pay out.

Which means in objective reality after a few women get pay outs, the insurance companies will no longer stand behind the policies because they don't like paying out. <shrug>

That horse is over the horizon at this point, and scolding the stable door won't help much.

‘And if your employment policy is discriminatory to people who do not hold the prescribed genderpolitical views, the woman in question will still be entitled to a compensation pay out.’

And it will be easier for her to get it if she has your discriminatory policy to read from.

Yeah. Without the EAT decision on the belief it wouldn’t have the same protection in law.

Oh god, I read that trans safety network piece and want to scream. So much disingenuous bullshit. The author says "It is also important to note how comparatively reasonable Maya Forstater’s conduct was, compared to the sweeping claims that have been made by GCs about what the Forstater EAT decision protects. This is not to say her comments were acceptable or were not transphobic - they were, and I will not damage anyone’s mental health further by reproducing all of them here. But her other comments and subsequent conduct undermine her self-created image of a fiery GC warrior, unwilling to capitulate to anyone, and would likely get her disinvited from many GC parties."

What would get her disinvited from parties? The fact she wasn't prepared to use the wrong pronouns to someone's face at work, and the fact she put a caveat on twitter saying her views were her own and not related to her employer.

This is complete DARVO in action. Every single gender critical feminist from the very beginning knew exactly what Maya's position was and what she said. We were there from the start insisting that she hadn't misgendered anyone at work, nor had she used the 'wrong' pronouns. When all of this started, I didn't see ANY trans activists saying that Maya's conduct was 'reasonable'. They are only saying this now she has won, and they look stupid. In fact, they still insist that her straightforward expressions of GC belief are 'transphobic' and not acceptable.

Thousands of GC feminists followed this case on Twitter, listened to it live, and contributed to the crowd fund. Where are they getting this idea from that Maya is a sell out and not really GC? Could it in fact be the case that what we were saying all along is correct and yes, Maya really did get fired for saying entirely reasonable, normal things?

"It is also important to note how comparatively reasonable Maya Forstater’s conduct was, compared to the sweeping claims that have been made by GCs about what the Forstater EAT decision protects.
Not gonna bother reading it, but from my own personal experience it is GC people that have spent the last 3 years repeatedly, exhaustedly, pointing to the fact that MF's GC views are that 'sex is real and immutable and sometimes this matters'.
It is the TRAs that have perpetrated the myth that 'she wants to legally enforce bullying trans people!!!!!!!!!!!!'.

So yeah. A rather disingenuous account, there.

This is nonsense on stilts, as Maya would say.

Just ran that trans safety network thing past DP who is a lawyer (and who got something like 97 percent across the board in Bar Finals) — DP says it doesn’t make sense, conflates several tests and misunderstands the relevant concepts of manifestation, belief and reasonableness. Or something! (I’m not a lawyer…)

Hilariously Maugham has got himself into hot water tonight on Twitter, for making a post to Rishi Sunak that he then had to delete…. I won’t repeat the actual tweet, but it’s eye-poppingly misjudged to the point of sounding astonishingly awful (I’m sure someone somewhere has archived it). He’s now deleted it, with some ensuing rambling “apologies” on his Twitter feed, if you can see them, including one where he claims that lots of “people of colour” have privately messaged him to agree with him, and all the people publically objecting to his tweet are white. 🙄

You live by the wokesphere, you die by the wokesphere….

Yeah, I saw that, assumed that sort of thing was business as usual for him, to be honest. "Eye-poppingly misjudged to the point of sounding astonishingly awful" is his brand, no?

JFC just seen Maugham's tweet to Rishi! Honestly left wing blokes are just so grim, the hypocrisy and virtue signalling is off the scale.

Can someone sum up the tweet to Rishi?

I won’t link direct to the Daily Mail, but suffice to say they sum it up as follows:

“Fox-clubbing Remainer QC Jolyon Maugham sparks fury after asking Rishi Sunak whether Tories are 'ready to select a brown man' as PM”

Maugham's tweet:

Could it in fact be the case that what we were saying all along is correct and yes, Maya really did get fired for saying entirely reasonable, normal things?

Yes she did. And yes, of course we all knew it. And of course it's just rational common sense.

It's almost like TRAs don't claim outlandish bollocks, and that everything we say is akin to wishing genocide on trans people.