Maya Forstater: Woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweet

Cordell

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Honestly and between you and me, you should take him out of the back and make him disappear
But no, if the employee views are driving away customers, tough luck. You won't fire an openly gay one that drives away homophobes.

mcmoustache

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but saying that a human being can't literally change their sex is an actual fact and is hardly on same level as a child rapist is it? What a ridiculous comparison

I was responding to the post that I was responding to. It stated, in absolute terms that:

It's absolutely unacceptable to get fired because things you say in your free time and not representing your employer.

I provided a counter example. I even bolded it in my response to make it clear to other readers what I was responding to.

mcmoustache

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter here is that she simply stated her beliefs, which she is fully entitled to do. It's no different to someone saying they believe in God, it's a belief.

It's got a bit more grounding in reality than a belief in a god, in fairness.

Housefree

PreparationH wrote: »

[
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
  

I get your other points, but this is just having an issue with males as troop leaders. AFAIK troop leaders can still be male or female so it should be a non issue.

Calahonda52

What does gender-critical beliefs mean please?

Calahonda52

Calahonda52 wrote: »

What does gender-critical beliefs mean please?

Someone who says that Trans-women aren't women, or that trans-men aren't men. Or says that a women is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Or says that ones sex is observed at birth as opposed to being assigned at birth.

mcmoustache

Cordell wrote: »

Honestly and between you and me, you should take him out of the back and make him disappear
But no, if the employee views are driving away customers, tough luck. You won't fire an openly gay one that drives away homophobes.

I'm struggling to see how that could arise. I can't think of many businesses that depend on homophobes (orange sashes, halal foodstores maybe?) which would also be in high demand in terms of jobs for openly gay folk. I also can't see it driving business away - even homophobes want to see a gay person to moan about later and harp on about how the world's going to shít. All this is somewhat moot though, given legislation and all that.

mcmoustache

Hhhhh wrote: »

Someone who says that Trans-women aren't women, or that trans-men aren't men. Or says that a women is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Or says that ones sex is observed at birth as opposed to being assigned at birth.

That's the far end of the spectrum. Gender-critical also includes those not on board with self-id. I sort of get the idea behind self-id but it does lead to some absurd situations.

RWCNT

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

So courtesy aside, does this mean "misgendering" someone is not in fact a heinous crime, but is merely "correctly sexing" ?

No, apparently not:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUQ_SXIAAeK4u?format=jpg&name=medium

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

No, apparently not:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUQ_SXIAAeK4u?format=jpg&name=medium

Whats that from?

archfi

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter here is that she simply stated her beliefs, which she is fully entitled to do. It's no different to someone saying they believe in God, it's a belief.

She didn't call trans people derogatory names or verbally abuse any - she did absolutely nothing wrong.

This a long overdue victory for common sense.

This is it in a nutshell.
Though you wouldn't know if all you read and watched was within a certain bubble.
Remember now extreme activists, believing sex is immutable is not a 'nazi' nor 'totalitarian' belief.
Good day for sanity though to actually have to appeal to a higher tribunal to assert a fact like that is all kinds of wrong.

archfi

Hhhhh wrote: »

She didn't have her contract renewed because of her views. It was a de-facto firing. Had she not publicly stated what she did her contract would likely have been renewed.

She was on the road to fulltime contract - they, over a short time reduced the contract status from fulltime within a timeframe to accredited to advisory to consultant (I may have the terms wrong), all following her legal right to voice her beliefs.
CGD are a US HQ'd thinktank. Nuff said.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of these sorts of tweets popping up:

https://twitter.com/mlothianmclean/status/1402924859945017345

Which is odd, since Forstater has never, to my knowledge, expressed a desire to harass, discriminate against or intimidate trans people. She just does not believe that humans are sequentially hermaphroditic.

It seems very disingenuous for a group of activists to spend months gloating in the bailey that a woman has been fired for saying that transwomen are not female... and then, when the judgment goes the other way, to to run back up to the motte and pretend that it was in any way related to harassment or discrimination of trans people.

Arrah, they’re just desperately trying to come to terms with today’s ruling and rationalise it in their minds. Let them off. :pac:

Anyway, a wonderful outcome. Sense prevails.

Tilden Katz

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Worth pointing out that despite everyone saying she was fired, that's not what happened. She just didn't have her contract renewed.

Personally I like to have the basic facts of the topic before I discuss it, but it seems like that's a standard not everyone abides by.

If she could reasonably have expected to have her contact renewed otherwise, it’s the same difference as far as I’m concerned.

_Kaiser_

suicide_circus wrote: »

To continue with the parlance, no one cares what you "identify" as. But that does not trump another persons right to recognise biological reality.

This.

The problem seems to arise when others refuse to buy into someone's chosen identity.

And that's the key word - chosen. Someone's personal view on their identity does not change biological or historical fact.

The whole idea that people who refuse to accept a choice as fact should be abused, lose their jobs, or face other sanctions is frankly ridiculous and fundamentally wrong.

As with all identity politics and most social media crusades in general the rule is - believe whatever you want, but don't expect others to validate you - because just as you have that right, so too do they have the right to disagree with you.

We really - as a society - need to stop feeding these victim narratives and enabling bullying under the guise of progress

RWCNT

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Whats that from?

The judgement itself.

The whole thing is up here - https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

The judgement itself.

The whole thing is up here - https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

That's fair enough, don't discriminate or harrass anyone (as defined under the EqA), applies to "both sides"; wonder will TRA now not harass those with gender critical views speaking out...

volchitsa

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was responding to the post that I was responding to. It stated, in absolute terms that:

I provided a counter example. I even bolded it in my response to make it clear to other readers what I was responding to.

Presumably you should have taken it as read that the poster wasn't referring to criminal activities though? :rolleyes:

mcmoustache

I know very little about the Transgender debates or the issues around it. I have no dog in that race at all - and it has never come into my spheres in life yet. So I do not really know what the ruling means. But if it means a win for free speech over the forces who seek to silence or punish people for what they say and think - then it is a win in my view. I am not a "free speech extremist" I think. But I am not far off

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Well yes - if you have an employee who is breaking the law, expressing loudly their desire to break the law, or is inciting others to break the law then I too would support your right to fire such an employee. If you have no such right I would sign any petitions for the government to give you them. The problem is with your employee in that case.

The reason your analogy fails however is that if your employee is losing you money because they are something - think something - or represent something entirely legal that the customers simply dislike - then I do not think your loss of money should over rule basic employee legal protections in most cases. Whatever they happen to be. (I can think of exceptions where my opinions are grey and unsure though). The problem here is with your customers in that case.

So your employee might turn out to support trump - or be heinously ugly - or be transgender - or be a muslim or a jew - or be homosexual. And your customers who are anti trump - sexist - transphobic - islamophobic - antisemitic - or homophobic take issue with it. That's unfortunate and I feel for you - I really do - but your employee still has rights I hope. Especially if they are competently performing the job you hired them to do.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Depends on what was already there I guess.

It likely also depends _which_ Joe Rogan videos you watch. The algorithm on you tube likely works on knowing what other people who watch one of his episodes also watch. So if you watch two or three episodes of Rogan where he has comedians on - and the alogirthm knows that many other people who also watched it were into comedy - you will likely get a string of video suggestions for other comedians.

If however you watch the episode (relevant partially to this thread I guess) where he had Abigail Shrier on - then your you tube feed is going to suddenly hit a lot of Transgender and Anti Transgender results.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And that's the key word - chosen. Someone's personal view on their identity does not change biological or historical fact.

As I said above I know very little about this subject. But I do wonder if the word "chosen" is entirely useful? What aspect of their condition - the people who actually are transgender that is rather than anyone who has become convinced they are or is just claiming to be for whatever reason - is chosen?

During the homosexual morality and homosexual marriage debates the idea they "choose" to be homosexual was also thrown around a bit. And I doubted at that time too that they were choosing their sexuality. And many (if not most) of the people posting on those topics who were gay said as much themselves too.

I am not convinced what they choose and what they do not. I know so little about it - but I have my doubts they choose it any more than people with Body integrity dysphoria do. And as such my position is one of empathy for them and a wish to go as far as is sane to alleviate any suffering they have.

But where that line "sane" is drawn is likely where most of the real wars are fought on this subject. And it is such wars I have tended to keep out of. At least until I have a dog in the fight for whatever reason. Or someone directly challenges me to accept subjectivity over scientific facts. Which thus far no one has

circadian

PreparationH wrote: »

• How would you feel if the intimate care nurse assigned to your elderly mother was a fully intact biological male? And if she complained about it she'd be called a bigot?
• How would you feel if your daughter was forced to share toilets with biological males?
• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
• How does it feel to know that Stonewall were telling huge massive porkies about what the law says re: gender recognition?
• How does it feel to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while these things were brought in by many organizations to help what they saw as a marginalized minority, the structures and denial of even the most basic discussion has provided a cloak for some very dodgy characters and predatory males to do whatever they wanted to do and if anyone said anything, all they had to say was "TRANSPHOBE!" and all of their detractors melted away?

You have got a LOT of catching up to do

Is that right aye? Let's take this one point by point then.

• How would you feel if the intimate care nurse assigned to your elderly mother was a fully intact biological male? And if she complained about it she'd be called a bigot?
  I'd have no problem with a "fully intact" male (sounds like some bull**** Computing Forever would come out with) performing this service, I'd hold a male nurse to the same standards as a female nurse, in fact I'd hold a nurse to the same standard as any other nurse regardless of gender. It's not that hard to do. I know for a fact my ma wouldn't complain because she raised me to be fair and open, and if she did complain I'd expect her to have a bit more tact than to refer to someone as "biologically intact male".
  
• How would you feel if your daughter was forced to share toilets with biological males?
  Again, I have no issue here. If my daughter has a problem with it then I'd seek alternatives, otherwise if she's happy I'm happy
  
• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
  I'd have more issue with a vulnerable person being forced to share a prison cell with anyone if they have requirements to the contrary. Men aren't the only dangerous people in prison, I'm sure you know that but sure throw in your "biologically intact male" ****e as you see fit.
  
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
  My daughter plays mixed gender football and is better than a lot of the boys. As for allowing transgender competition in your example. I'm undecided as there ihasn't been enough research on the subject. I certainly don't support the "men are naturally stronger and better than women at sport" talking point but I am open to correction through scientific study.
  
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
  I'd have no issue with it. What fox in the coop? Are you suggesting that because someone is transgender that they are a sexual predator? In fact you previous posts all point to yes, you seem to be implying that.
  
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
  I'd have more issue with the scouting troop accepting someone to take care of children if they are unable to verify their background
  
• How does it feel to know that Stonewall were telling huge massive porkies about what the law says re: gender recognition?
  I'm not familiar with this and therefore cannot address this point
  
• How does it feel to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while these things were brought in by many organizations to help what they saw as a marginalized minority, the structures and denial of even the most basic discussion has provided a cloak for some very dodgy characters and predatory males to do whatever they wanted to do and if anyone said anything, all they had to say was "TRANSPHOBE!" and all of their detractors melted away?
  Hyperbole? Certainly reads like it

Tilden Katz

Well, I'm fine with most medical procedures being carried out by males or females, even intimate ones. Most. However there was one time I asked for the male present to leave. And I'll do so again if I need to, however that male might present. Any offence taken is not my problem. I'd be the one in a vulnerable position.

jmayo

circadian wrote: »

Is that right aye? Let's take this one point by point then.

• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
  I'd have more issue with a vulnerable person being forced to share a prison cell with anyone if they have requirements to the contrary. Men aren't the only dangerous people in prison, I'm sure you know that but sure throw in your "biologically intact male" ****e as you see fit.
  How did it work out for those female prisoners who were going to be sharing with the convicted rapist that suddenly saw themselves as female.
  
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
  My daughter plays mixed gender football and is better than a lot of the boys. As for allowing transgender competition in your example. I'm undecided as there ihasn't been enough research on the subject. I certainly don't support the "men are naturally stronger and better than women at sport" talking point but I am open to correction through scientific study.

Well then you don't know a lot about sport, and even less about anatomy and most especially physiology.
On average men/males are physically stronger than women/females, it is not even open for debate.
And a lot of that has to do with development through puberty.
Only the disingenuous and those of a certain mindset ever argue that a transwoman who has gone through male puberty is no different to a biological woman.

There is a reason the men's 100m record is faster then the womens 100m.
There is a reason no female golfer is competing in the mens tour.
There is reason no female is playing mens rugby.
etc, etc, etc.

Notice I never once mentioned skill.
That is a different discussion entirely.
Skill is not determined by sex.

Also if your daughter is playing mixed gender football then there is a very good chance she is at most in her teens and one can readily see girls up to teenage years that are often physically bigger than boys of a similar age.
In fact my sons team were trounced by girls team that were just a year older.
The girls were bigger and more developed.

But by the time she reaches adulthood the guys will have developed a lot more physically.
Of course there will always be outliers who will be naturally bigger or smaller than the norm.

Ten of Swords

PreparationH do not post in this thread again

the purple tin

I think JK Rowling is owed an apology.

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote: »

I think JK Rowling is owed an apology.

From the people who repeatedly threatened to “rape her with my girl dick” and so on?

I’d say that’s highly unlikely!

mewso

jmayo wrote: »

There is a reason the men's 100m record is faster then the womens 100m.
There is a reason no female golfer is competing in the mens tour.
There is reason no female is playing mens rugby.
etc, etc, etc.

Notice I never once mentioned skill.
That is a different discussion entirely.
Skill is not determined by sex.

Also if your daughter is playing mixed gender football then there is a very good chance she is at most in her teens and one can readily see girls up to teenage years that are often physically bigger than boys of a similar age.
In fact my sons team were trounced by girls team that were just a year older.
The girls were bigger and more developed.

But by the time she reaches adulthood the guys will have developed a lot more physically.
Of course there will always be outliers who will be naturally bigger or smaller than the norm.

I agree with this. I disagree with the idea of posing an argument as a scare tactic (how would you feel if etc.). There will be issues along the way, maybe court rulings, furious alt-right youtubers talking about a Totalitarian Marxist future but like many things we will eventually work it out and it likely won't match the visions of the future held by the extremists on either side.

volchitsa

mewso wrote: »

I agree with this. I disagree with the idea of posing an argument as a scare tactic (how would you feel if etc.). There will be issues along the way, maybe court rulings, furious alt-right youtubers talking about a Totalitarian Marxist future but like many things we will eventually work it out and it likely won't match the visions of the future held by the extremists on either side.

It's true that there can be hysteria on both sides, but it seems to me that the biggest problem here is that one side wants to shut down anything that is less than complete agreement with them, on the grounds that it's as bad as anti semitism (as the CEO of Stonewall said recently).

Changing the law to redefine woman as something new is a change that needs to be discussed, not enforced from above, and that's why Maya Forstater's win on appeal is so important, because it means that women who have concerns about their own issues are equally entitled to put them forward without being shut down and even banned from social media.

Saying that it's wrong to want to shut down disagreement from one side is not furious alt-right ranting about marxism. But for a while that's where we've been headed. Hopefully, since the judgment refered to EU law as well, there will also be an effect in Ireland too, and Amnesty or the NWCI will no longer get away with calling for gender critical women to be refused political representation.

bewareofthedog

According to some its those who believe in biological science who are the brain washed ones, especially those watching "alt right" Roe Rogan podcasts?

Maybe take a step back and reevaluate things?

circadian

circadian wrote: »

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

I don't agree with much of the infractioned post that responded to this, as there are numerous implications in it that transwomen are inherently predatory.

I agree also that if a person is trans, that's their business. All the best to them - it's not easy.

The issue though is not so much people being transgender but certain policy around language and discourse. E.g. someone merely stating that biological sex is not immutable - this is actually seen as bigotry. Bonkers. Language redefining "woman" - like "birthing people" and "front hole" in relation to female genitalia. Actual erasure of terms used in relation to biological females. As a woman I find this utterly despicable. And it IS women who are mostly bearing the brunt of it. By the way, these are not just right-wing myths - they're recent developments (Biden and a health company's official website).

It is also unfair if those born male are competing with females in sport. I just don't see how there could be an argument against this?

The issue with prisons, toilets and changing rooms is not all transwomen but predators who often (usually) aren't trans, they just say they are, and who take advantage. I get this is hurtful for decent transwomen so why not another space for transwomen?

bewareofthedog

bewareofthedog wrote: »

According to some its those who believe in biological science who are the brain washed ones, especially those watching "alt right" Roe Rogan podcasts?

Maybe take a step back and reevaluate things?

There was a time not too long ago when I would have said "just let transwomen call themselves women - gender is ambiguous, what's the harm".

And I still don't care if individual transwomen call themselves women - I'll agree they are at an informal level, and gender is ambiguous.

But gender is not sex, and when official language doesn't distinguish, when this is entering policy, when it's considered hateful not to deny biology, that's a whole other matter. It affects women and respect should be two-way.

Yes transphobes will agree with what I'm saying, but I don't agree with their transphobia.