Read on Twitter
I made a thread about Maya Forstater’s case yesterday, with screenshots of her barristers’ skeleton, only for it to vanish into the ether of my drafts folder. Let’s see how far I get this time.
The question tomorrow is “is believing sex matters a belief worth protecting?”
The question tomorrow is “is believing sex matters a belief worth protecting?”
Sorry, trans ideologues: there was *no trans colleague.* That was fake news.
Women’s rights & believing that #SexMatters are not “transphobic” or “bigoted.” They’re not even beliefs about trans-identifying people.
Woman = adult human female is a neutral expression of fact
Art 17 should only be used against the gravest forms of hate speech, eg. Nazi-like rhetoric which seeks to whip up violence
But even virulent & intransigent political speech is protected
A democratic society can’t restrict speech to mollify public feelings
Maya Forstater’s beliefs accord with the law, which recognises the importance of both sex & gender reassignment; quotes Karon Monaghan’s essay
There is nothing remotely approaching unlawful about failing to address someone who ID’s as trans by their preferred pronouns
Common law recognises that sex & gender are different things
Sex is a material reality, no amount of plastic surgery can change it
Gender recognition laws do not regulate the speech & behaviour of private citizens
Once again for the trans extremists: gender recognition laws do not bite on the conduct of private citizens
One more time: gender change law doesn’t even begin to touch how ordinary people, going about their lives, can behave
It’s somewhat different in the workplace, but it depends on the particular facts. Honest mistakes aren’t unlawful.
Sex-based exemptions carve out single-sex space for women & girls
Why would a transsexual male ever demand to work in a rape crisis centre? That’s obviously not OK
Gender feels are important & worthy of respect. As are women’s rights. Obvs.
If you can’t stand the heat of robust debate, criticism & attack, get out of the Twitter kitchen
Even with regard to a particular trans-ID person, even potentially distressing contributions to debate are OK
The Equal Treatment Bench Book was about courtroom etiquette, and was not intended to regulate the daily doings of difficult women
The Yogyakarta Principles are not international law. They are binding on precisely nothing.
Both the UK & US courts recognise that compelled speech is a bad thing
None of us have a right not to be offended (hellooo cancel crew 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👋🏻" title="Winkende Hand (heller Hautton)" aria-label="Emoji: Winkende Hand (heller Hautton)">)
)" title="None of us have a right not to be offended (hellooo cancel crew https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👋🏻" title="Winkende Hand (heller Hautton)" aria-label="Emoji: Winkende Hand (heller Hautton)">)" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
It’s not for an Employment Tribunal to decide whether the claimant’s beliefs are right or wrong
It’s not for an Employment Tribunal to judge that a claimant ought to have arrived at her beliefs on a different basis than she did
The first instance judge, instead of recognising Maya Forstater’s beliefs are worthy of respect, adopted the respondent employer’s belief system & judged her wanting
Judges are not to descend into the arena with the combatants. Demolishes the “absolutism” charge.
It’s characteristic of many different types of protected, respectable belief that they are absolutist, eg. pacifists don’t believe a little bit of war is grand
Even beliefs which do engage moral judgment of members of protected groups can enjoy Art 9/10 protection
No law can compel someone to express beliefs contrary to the ones they hold
Having failed to identify one trans-ID person harassed etc by Maya Forstater, the tribunal held that she must at all times express beliefs she does not hold
Difficult to avoid the conclusion that the tribunal regretted that self-ID was not the law, and that it had adopted the belief that sex and gender are the same
Karon Monaghan’s essay again: surprising that a belief held by the court for 40 years was deemed incompatible with democracy (slam dunk)
If believing in gender identity meets the Grainger test, then so does not believing in gender identity. Simples.
Not believing in gender identity doesn’t necessarily correlate with believing that trans-ID males are https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="♂" title="Männliches Zeichen" aria-label="Emoji: Männliches Zeichen">
" title="Not believing in gender identity doesn’t necessarily correlate with believing that trans-ID males are https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="♂" title="Männliches Zeichen" aria-label="Emoji: Männliches Zeichen">" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
In the era of cancel culture, we need especially robust protections for freedom of belief & expression
Please allow the appeal, finding that Maya Forstater’s beliefs were protected from discrimination by the Equality Act, and remit the case to the lower court for a full hearing on the issues.
@threadreaderapp please unroll
