Forstater judgment tomorrow

[achillestoes]

In case we hadn’t had enough drama.

Good luck, Maya.

Thread in AIBU expressing similar sentiments: To think Tory party is not ready for a non-white PM http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4585814-to-think-tory-party-is-not-ready-for-a-non-white-pm

I get that, actually. CGD were really, really, really stupid. Had they handled this with more sense, the case would never have happened and profoundly unhelpful case law wouldn't have come into existence. As it is, they let the side down.

@Tiphaine the reason the tweet comes across so badly is that he isn’t actually engaging in a serious debate about the issue, but just patronisingly throwing out rhetorical questions about “brown men”.

Now I personally know people from SE Asia who say “brown” as a descriptor about their own community; but it isn’t something that sounds good in a pejorative, patronising tone from a rich white man, is it?

South Asia, meant to say, not SE Asia. (Serves me right for living in SE England - my autocorrect seems to think everyone does 😂)

Good grief! Talk about patronising

What, me or Maugham? I can assure you that Maugham is definitely patronising. You think that’s okay for him to tweet that to Sunak? I don’t vote Tory and have no love for Sunak but it’s a pretty shocking tweet, actually. As he acknowledges in the bumbling “apologies” on his feed.

I was talking about your post to me, where you tagged me and explained why Maugham's post was objectionable.

It read like you were defending Maugham by posting the thread - is that not that case, then?

No, it really isn't. What about my post gave you that impression? I didn't say anything that could have given that impression.

Jesus, that tweet. What an utter twat the man is.

Would loved for Rishi to have replied, though.

My apologies then, @Tiphaine — I got the wrong end of the stick!

There was a good response on Twitter by Sunder Katwala, iirc.

James Cleverly isn’t impressed. Whether not you agree with him politically he’s right about a rich white man using race to score political points

The end of his next tweet doesn’t pull any punches

“Do us all a favour and stick to murdering urban fauna and separating left-wing fools from their money.”

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.

Hardly. We know what she said, better than most trans activists. And Kellie-Jay Keen, who definitely won't capitulate to anyone, has interviewed her on her podcast and she spoke at the last Standing For Women meeting at Speakers Corner.

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?

Someone on Twitter tried to promote this idea by faking an account for KJK (who isn't on Twitter as she was banned) and saying this, and said tweet was then breathlessly shared here as news, in total good faith, naturally.

Part of the lobby's MO is an apparent inability to believe that people can hold a range of diversity of opinions and positions without this making them into disparate rival gangs of some kind.

What's that about?

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.

But as various lawyers have said, these will need to be evenhanded and equal. So trans people might be caught by that too.

Thousands of GC feminists followed this case on Twitter, listened to it live, and contributed to the crowd fund

They created threads on popular parenting social media sites, suggested musicals, TV dramatisations, drafted cast lists, admired the hair of the barrister for the respondents, chipped in with appropriate legal commentary, discussed the principles of Open Justice and the need for transcripts…

The problem the political lobby has, is that achievements have been made by getting around the law, trying to fiddle the law, misrepresent the law, all to advantage their own interests and to suppress and remove other people's interests where they conflict.

The law has now said no, those people have equal right to consideration and the law must be enforced to ensure this.

No more gerrymandering.

The solution they've immediately gone to apparently? New gerrymandering.

The law still says no. Female people still have rights too, and cannot be subordinated or disposed of when inconvenient. Sorry and all that.

The solution they've immediately gone to apparently? New gerrymandering.

To be fair, what else could they do? They don't have anything else.

Yes, you'd think those of who actually funded this thing might be considered to have some knowledge about what we were supporting, wouldn't you? Actually who am I kidding, it's only women, of course we can't be expected to understand.

Olivia Dobbie's hair game certainly was strong, @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

James Cleverley practically set Jojolyloyon on fire! Burning hard.

😍A nuanced balance of stylish and well-groomed hair that I envy to this day.

And Olivia Dobbie did give MN a passing acknowledgement in her closing argument about Article 10 protections.

OD: Art10 protections very wide – pornography, advertising. That does not mean an employer has to include them in workplace.
OD: Please don’t misquote me on mumsnet as comparing MF views to pornograhy [sic].
OD: But, must consider Art 10 within workplace context

hiyamaya.net/livetweets-from-the-tribunal

Absolutely. I think the assumption that employment policies are there for the convenience of trans groups does demonstrate a level of entitlement that we are all very familiar with. The expectation that trans employees' needs & wants will be the priority for companies who are still supposed to have a duty of care for all employees is very evident in the twitter space discussion.

What I think will be worth watching is the ED&I groups (including but not just) stonewall's reaction & efforts to push the sorts of policies they hope will ensure compelled silencing or sacking of women who speak & act in women's interests. Their wilful misrepresentation of the law will ratchet up to try & persuade orgs that the policies they promote will be necessary to 'protect' them from litigation like CGD have gone through.

I don't think it's a given that orgs are wising up to Stonewall et al & will be sceptical about advice given to them by ED&I orgs with the same agendas. It will take the collective efforts of women to watch their own employers policies to pick up on where their rights are being stamped on etc.

I think this whole 'battle' is going to continue indefinitely with women needing to be continually vigilant. Because this won't stop.