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

[–] 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.

[–] 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.