‘This is not a licence to harass people. Rather it is a recognition that in a democratic country, people with different beliefs can express them and get along.’ Maya on Twitter today.

[samsalmon]

Maya wrote the above on one of her Twitter threads today. Just a note of caution that people not use this as an excuse to do exactly what we have been trying to protect ourselves from. I’ve already seen some folk on Twitter misinterpreting this and taking it to mean that Maya’s views are now the only legitimate ones, when clearly that was not the point of the ruling, it was that she was entitled to express her views and not be harassed and discriminated against. It’s not about instigating open season on those you don’t agree with.

In more cheerful news, #MayaTheForstaterBeWithYou is now a thing!

Also, any behaviour deemed to be harassing may well lead to justified disciplinary or even legal action.

Gosh thanks for the warning

🤨

People on Twitter misinterpreting stuff? Well I never.

Did you correct people on Twitter?

Have you seen anyone on MN making the same mistake?

"Ourselves"? Are you sure about that?

Do you have an A level in law?

So many questions about the point of this thread.

Good to see those ologies haven't gone to waste.

When she won last time I enjoyed reading "things that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to do". There are some here.
lilymaynard.com/101-things-the-ruling-does-not-give-maya-forstater-the-right-to-do/

IIRC after the last Maya victory, when the TRAs tried to twist the caveats, a whole host (herd? gang?) of wondrous vipers here and on Twitter ripped the piss out of them by pointing out that this didn't give Maya the right to break into your house and rearrange your Christmas tree decorations/swipe your Sunday lunch/divert your mains electricity supply and a whole host of other stuff. Time to revisit that methinks

Alternative serious answer: no, of course we shouldn't harass trans people and the TRAs SHOULDN'T HARASS US (guess which one of these happens irl).

Cross post plasmode!

No I don’t have any background in law and I haven’t seen anyone harassing anyone on here, I didn’t say either of these things but I can see how my words might have come across like that. I meant recognising or even challenging harassing behaviour if we come across it in general. I don’t know what the reference to ‘ologies’ means, sorry. I just thought that Maya’s point was a good one and it started a discussion with DH, who employs a few people and provides a service to the public. We were discussing scenarios where there might be an unclear line between validly expressing your own beliefs and treating someone in a way that might be construed as harassment. And then a couple of interactions on Twitter today and yes I know people say all sorts on there.

Maya has never once harassed a trans person. She has never even come close to it. There was no trans person. It's hypothetical.

This tribunal was about her being harassed. In her work. Over her beliefs.

A lot of TRAs seem to be under the impression that not being allowed to discriminate against women will be detrimental to themselves.

Somehow, not being legally allowed to harass women for what they believe means that they themselves will suffer some kind of negativity.

Go figure.

@Datun I know and I have also seen the predictable DARVO response from SW today. I just think that for people like my DH and others who have GC views but have not followed this very closely, there is a risk that they could inadvertently find themselves in hot water. For example, we were talking about protecting single sex spaces/loos at his workplace and how he could frame that without being discriminatory towards anyone. As an employer and service provider, he’d have to be careful how he approached that including in his language, because there are different interests at play.

Maybe I’ve misconstrued Maya’s words, it’s possible. I took them to mean that we should all guard against harassment, intentional or otherwise, towards anyone.

In DH’s small business, there is no room for third spaces. Some of his service users are Muslim women, he doesn’t have any trans-identifying staff or service users at the moment but it could happen. When we were talking it through, and how he would deal with a tricky situation, he said a few things that I thought could be construed as harassment/discrimination against a trans person, not intentionally, but he seemed to think that was acceptable after today’s judgement, because well, all this is quite new to him and to a lot of people. And then as I say, a couple of comments I noticed and interacted with on Twitter.

Thanks, OP, I was just on my way out to find someone to harass. I'll stop now, and have a cup of tea, instead.

You state you and your DH haven't followed this closely and yet you felt qualified to post a warning on board populated by posters who do follow the whole no debate very closely?

Today's judgement has no bearing on single sex spaces, they are already covered in the EA 2010. Single sex spaces are not discriminatory against trans people. Your husband could look at resources from sex matters for further information.

samsalmon

Got it.

From what I can gather, Twitter is a cesspit. The women on here are more clued up, and we are very, very used to using constraint in our language.

I doubt any would be in danger of coming close to harassment.

And in terms of formulating policy, there shouldn't be any need to come close to it then, either.

Sex Matters, Safe Schools Alliance, FPFW, KPSS and Transgender Trend will all have reams of advice on how to frame policy to protect women. And all in the politest terms possible.

And all iron tight in terms of legality.

Go on, I’ll bite……what did your DH say? Slap his WrongThink down on here and if it gets deleted you’ll know he’s a bad ‘un who will never stop committing literal violence against transpeople.

we are very, very used to using constraint in our language.

Steady on.

🤣

Maybe we should set up tea stands so women can stop, have a cuppa everywhere on our way to harass others. And then there could be little piles of notes to warn us not to do it …

Wow. Some nasty replies on this thread. The OP has posted on FWR many times before and is GC. Maya's Tweet was, I thought, interesting and a reminder of the importance of free speech.

What's really significant now, I reckon, is that TRAs don't get to use their definition of harassment, bigotry, fascism or transphobia any more.

It's a legal definition which includes raising safeguarding concerns and asserting personal beliefs around things like announcing pronouns in a signature, etc.

And, they cannot harass us for doing so any more. They can't call us fascists. Imagine the progress that's going to be made in the NHS, education, academia - wow!

Thank you Maya xxxxx

Well fuck me. And I was just about to go out and harass a load of trans people, like the big old TERFy bigot that I am.

🤐

Yes, that is a very good point.

Without hyperbole, the whole discussion would be a very, very different one!

OP, apologies if I misunderstood your initial post/intentions. It is worth discussing, I'm sure, but I think the main point is that women asking questions, discussing their rights is not in any way 'harassment' and can't be construed as such.

Well, quite.

It's almost as if there are people who think this is as new as when they found out about it, rather than an arena where some have been slogging away for almost 2 decades and more.

Some people just aren't very bright are they?