178

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096

https://sex-matters.org/?p=12595

https://hiyamaya.net/?page_id=3905

(links to sex matters and Maya's site seem to be working now)

ETA Maya's statement on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOIKlg71LJc

ETA 2 the full ruling

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096 https://sex-matters.org/?p=12595 https://hiyamaya.net/?page_id=3905 (links to sex matters and Maya's site seem to be working now) ETA Maya's statement on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOIKlg71LJc ETA 2 the full ruling https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

36 comments

[–] radically_done 67 points (+67|-0)

I am only a few pages into reading the full judgement. Absolutely elated that she won, but disappointed by a lot of the language used thus far into the judgement; they spend an unreasonable amount of paper going on and on about the "real harms trans people go through" and the "harassment of misgendering". Cry me a river. Maya lost her job; what harms do trans people in a country like the UK go through that are worse than everyone else and aren't self inflicted?

[–] common_shrew 42 points (+42|-0)

Yes I was also surprised at the lengths they went to with that stuff too, even while criticising the fact that the original hearing went too far by starting to evaluate the belief itself.

Also if they’re going to be that finicky about it then joke’s on them because the ruling misgenders Bunce (p5):

b. Later that month, the Claimant made a number of comments about Pips/Philip Bunce, who is a senior director at Credit Suisse and describes himself as being “gender fluid” and “non-binary”.

[–] LadyGlum 17 points (+17|-0)

Bunce's pronouns, last time I checked, were he/she so she wasn't even misgendering him in the first place.

[–] common_shrew 7 points (+7|-0)

True! If she did, then so did this ruling. I would have expected the ruling to refer to “himself/herself” since it was being so particular about that stuff.

[–] XX_Power 8 points (+8|-0)

Hahahahaha that's amazing! Goes to show how few people actually believe in this nonsense

[–] Carthimundia 32 points (+32|-0)

So while I was rolling my eyes at this, I think it was actually strategically clever from the court. After the Keira Bell judgment the female judge (of course) was attacked, called a transphobe etc even by some lawyers (like Jo Maugham.) Even though the judgment had nothing to do with contraception, the TRAs jumped on it saying it would be used to deny teenagers abortions and contraceptives.

The court realises this is a very sensitive political hot potato, and they realise that misinformation is rife. After Maya's hearing there was loads of screeching from the TRAS that if she wins it would make misgendering legal, trans people could be fired for being trans etc. By laying it out so clearly, the court has blocked any avenue the TRAS might want to take in saying this judgment is 'transphobic'.

[–] jennagc 6 points (+6|-0)

Totally! That's what I told myself anyway, as I was really dismayed, at first, to read all their pander-fluff. Although I am still so disgusted with CGD's reaction. If I were her, I would sue them for workplace discrimination and damages. But I can also see her just not wanting to deal with it anymore. It would be awesome if she could file a suit and win, maybe it would discourage other employers from being completely obtuse on this issue. In any case, I am so grateful for this outcome. Hope we start to see victories like this in the US. Although there is the case of that gym teacher in Virginia being suspended for refusing to use his student's preferred pronouns. Thankfully, the school was ultimately ordered to allow him to return to work after it was ruled that his views were protected under freedom of speech and freedom of religious beliefs.

[–] Vulvamort 3 points (+3|-0)

That was my thought too. They had to make their argument as water tight as possible. Obviously TRAs will find something to complain about regardless, but the less ammo they're given, the better.

[–] lucretiamott 28 points (+28|-0)

When they get 'misgendered' they lose their erections - much worse than a woman losing her job!

Seriously though, I read it as well and I agree it was very sympathetic to t people. All those whining about it on twitter probably haven't read it because it treats the T with the softest of kid gloves.

[–] SterlingWitch 13 points (+13|-0)

Came here to say exactly this! The whole beginning is a cushion, pandering to their egos. I cannot believe that much fluff made it into a legal case.

[–] endthewoo [OP] 27 points (+27|-0)

The woman-haters are already gearing up to challenge the ruling

"Today’s decision is a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all. We’re currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers."

https://archive.vn/MOjVj

[–] Carthimundia 29 points (+29|-0)

Despite the fact the judges were at pains to say this didn't affect trans rights, didn't mean you could 'misgender' them to their face, didn't mean workplaces would be less safe and had no impact on their wider equality.

[–] MenHaveItEasy 14 points (+14|-0)

"Oh, we're so oppressed. Here's our army of high paid lawyers who will fight til the end of time."

[–] bossythecow 13 points (+13|-0)

Wait, how is respecting the reasonable beliefs of another person and not trying to impose authoritarian-style thought police on them a "step backwards" for inclusivity and equality? Can someone explain that to me?

[–] endthewoo [OP] 24 points (+24|-0)

Interesting statement from one of the lawyers in the case.

Good overview except "the pursuit of transgender rights is not misogynist" - actually it is by definition, because it requires the pretence that a woman is what ever a man conjures up for himself and hence will always be at odds with women as fully human in our own right.

https://archive.vn/A6U2U

[–] Jamiethiel2018 16 points (+16|-0)

Horray, and I think we've broken their website. At least I hope it's all the happy followers trying to read the judgement at the same time!

[–] Eriomra 16 points (+16|-0)

Some quotes from the judgement:

Interesting how they say that misgendering “May” be harassement.

.104. That does not mean that in the absence of such a restriction the Claimant could go about indiscriminately “misgendering” trans persons with impunity. She cannot. The Claimant is subject to same prohibitions on discrimination, victimisation and harassment under the EqA as the rest of society. Should it be found that her misgendering on a particular occasion, because of its gratuitous nature or otherwise, amounted to harassment of a trans person (or of anyone else for that matter), then she could be liable for such conduct under the EqA. The fact that the act of misgendering was a manifestation of a belief falling with s.10, EqA would not operate automatically to shield her from such liability. The Tribunal correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man “may” be unlawful harassment. However, it erred in concluding that that possibility deprived her of the right to do so in any situation.

You cannot as well require someone to believe in gender identity:

The fact that the Claimant did not share the gender identity belief is enough in itself to qualify for protection. If a person, A, is treated less favourably by her employer, B, because of A’s failure to profess support for B’s gender identity belief then that could amount to unlawful discrimination because of a lack of belief.

About the fact that it is not nazism:

The Claimant’s belief might well be considered offensive and abhorrent to some, but the accepted evidence before the Tribunal was that she believed that it is not “incompatible to recognise that human beings cannot change sex whilst also protecting the human rights of people who identify as transgender”: see para 39.2 of the Judgment. That is not, on any view, a statement of a belief that seeks to destroy the rights of trans persons. It is a belief that might in some circumstances cause offence to trans persons, but the potential for offence cannot be a reason to exclude a belief from protection altogether.

(...) 116. Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.

[–] endthewoo [OP] 20 points (+20|-0)

Part of the problem is the laws around "harassment" which are almost always used by men to abuse (and harass) women, but rarely are used to recognise the actual harassment that women suffer.

So, in the workplace a woman who does not want to comply with the pronoun nonsense, who states her right under law for single sex toilets etc - none of this is harassment at all.

However picking on an individual and subjecting them to a sustained campaign of threats, bullying, interference with their work - this is harassment - and it is all from the TRAs to women - rarely (if ever) the other other way round, yet the TRAs still bleat about how terribly persecuted they are. This is the next big step, to undo all that.

[–] jennagc 3 points (+3|-0)

Honestly, what I am anxiously awaiting - and it WILL happen - is for a TRA to send death threats to a co-worker who believes in biology. That WILL happen, mark my words, and it will wind up becoming a major case, too. Only a matter of time.

Probably will also have enough cases coming to light in the coming years of TRAs or transwomen assaulting a female co-worker in a space that was formerly single-sex. Unfortunately those things will likely have to become commonplace enough (I know they have already happened) before people regain enough sense en masse to protest this.

[–] LadyGlum 17 points (+17|-0)

That last quote annoys me. Being against gay marriage because you find it icky is apparently the same as believing the truth that someone who is male is still male no matter how much surgery they have. I'm thrilled with the outcome but come on, what are these judges thinking?

[–] Willow9 5 points (+5|-0) Edited

Exactly. It's not the same basis of comparison.

Biology is a fact. If someone wants to go against that and state otherwise, everyone should be entitled to have their own opinion about it and to be able to express it freely, specially females considering how much they suffer in patriarchal society on the basis of biological differences. Misogyny isn't gone just because people are obsessed about new forms of oppression, specially "transphobia", thus a correct statement about the Maya situation should've acknowledged that. Women are the ones loosing their jobs over gender critical views, why is that? Why are they the ones threatened by their views, in comparison with men holding the same beliefs?

Instead of acknowledging all that, they decided to present her situation as someone that dislikes a "minority", like someone that dislikes homossexual relationships. It's a false analogy, as people being gay have literally no impact whatsoever in broad concepts in society and do not threat female rights in any way.

thanks for the quotes, I don't have time to read the whole judgment but this is awesome

[–] MadSea 13 points (+13|-0)

What a great day. I bet JK is quite pleased, too. Wonderful news. I hope other countries start to follow!

[–] nobitary 11 points (+11|-0) Edited

Really glad about this, and on the other hand, this sentence from the judgment worries me: "This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity.”

:/

[–] Willow9 7 points (+7|-0) Edited

Yeah, if misgendering is a crime it implies a punishment. In my interpretation as someone that has no law formal knowledge, this statement may continue to put our jobs at risk. There's a precedent with Maya now, but many women might not be able to go into a legal battle of such complexity due to a handful of tweets and other "evidence".

[–] MenHaveItEasy 1 points (+1|-0)

Being forced to use incorrect pronouns should be a protected belief.

[–] bobo 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I think the judge also used the word “indiscriminately”.

My optimistic perspective (not a lawyer at all though) is that there may be some situations where misgendering is fine (speaking generally/about public figures or an accidental slip-up), but hounding a specific trans person and misgendering them repeatedly could still be considered harassment.

Frustrating in a way though because all the targeted harassment comes from only one side of this debate, and it’s not the feminists.

Ironically, it’s also incredibly hard to personally harass someone by misgendering them because due to the nature of pronouns, you are not even speaking to the person when you’re using them.

Here's some of the very best parts from the full ruling!!!

"The effect of a GRC, whilst broad as a matter of law, does not mean that a person who, like the Claimant, continues to believe that a trans woman with a GRC is still a man, is necessarily in breach of the GRA by doing so; the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not, any more than the recognition by the State of Civil Partnerships can compel some persons of faith to believe that a marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman is acceptable. That is not to say, of course, that the Claimant can, as a result of her belief, disregard the GRC; clearly, she cannot do so in circumstances where the acquired gender is legally relevant, e.g. in a claim of sex discrimination or harassment. Referring to a trans person by their pre-GRC gender in any of the settings in which the EqA applies could amount to harassment related to one or more protected characteristics1; whether or not it does will depend, as in any claim of harassment, on a careful assessment of all relevant factors, including whether the conduct was unwanted, the perception of the trans person concerned and whether it is reasonable for the impugned conduct to have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the trans person.

"The second error was in imposing a requirement on the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman to avoid harassment. In the absence of any reference to specific circumstances in which harassment might arise, this is, in effect, a blanket restriction on the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression insofar as they relate to her beliefs. However, that right applies to the expression of views that might “offend, shock or disturb”. The extent to which the State can impose restrictions on the exercise of that right is determined by the factors set out in Article 10(2), i.e. restrictions that are “prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the reputation or rights of others…” It seems that the Tribunal’s justification for this blanket restriction was that the Claimant’s belief “necessarily harms the rights of others”. As discussed above, that is not correct: whilst the Claimant’s belief, and her expression of them by refusing to refer to a trans person by their preferred pronoun, or by refusing to accept that a person is of the acquired gender stated on a GRC, could amount to unlawful harassment in some circumstances, it would not always have that effect: see para 99 above. In our judgment, it is not open to the Tribunal to impose in effect a blanket restriction on a person not to express those views irrespective of those circumstances.

"[I]nstead of treating the Claimant’s lack of the gender identity belief as also qualifying for protection, the Tribunal treated the Claimant’s lack of that belief as necessarily equating to a positive belief that trans women are men (which the Tribunal considered to be a belief not worthy of protection). In our judgment, that approach was wrong. The fact that the Claimant did not share the gender identity belief is enough in itself to qualify for protection. If a person, A, is treated less favourably by her employer, B, because of A’s failure to profess support for B’s gender identity belief then that could amount to unlawful discrimination because of a lack of belief.

"Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism that would warrant the application of Article 17. That is reason enough on its own to find that Grainger V is satisfied. The Claimant’s belief might well be considered offensive and abhorrent to some, but the accepted evidence before the Tribunal was that she believed that it is not “incompatible to recognise that human beings cannot change sex whilst also protecting the human rights of people who identify as transgender”: see para 39.2 of the Judgment. That is not, on any view, a statement of a belief that seeks to destroy the rights of trans persons. It is a belief that might in some circumstances cause offence to trans persons, but the potential for offence cannot be a reason to exclude a belief from protection altogether.

" [A] widely shared belief demands particular care before it can be condemned as being not worthy of respect in a democratic society. 114. Second, the Claimant’s belief that sex is immutable and binary is, as the Tribunal itself correctly concluded, consistent with the law: see para 83. Where a belief or a major tenet of it appears to be in accordance with the law of the land, then it is all the more jarring that it should be declared as one not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society. "

Load more (2 comments)