BBC not happy
The BBC is very grudging. Of course it is.
In the initial tribunal employment judge James Tayler concluded that Ms Forstater was “absolutist” in her view and said she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering”.
The usual shit – accusing us of planning or trying or wanting to ignore the rights of trans people.
Also, “misgendering” is a novel word and concept, and one with some sinister implications.
Ms Forstater said she was “delighted to have been vindicated” but [her former employer] CGD said the decision was a “step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all”.
Amanda Glassman, executive vice president of CGD, said: “The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe Judge Tayler got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act.
“Today’s decision is a step backwards for inclusivity and equality for all.”
In a video statement, Ms Forstater said: “I’m proud of the role I’ve played in clarifying the law and encouraging more people to speak up”.
Notice how much more space the BBC gave the other party to make their case than it gave to Maya.
Then the analysis, by Dominic Casciani:
Where does this leave employers? Equality and employment law require them to recognise and uphold the rights of all in the workplace.
Ms Forstater’s speech and beliefs are protected – but so are the rights of trans people. And if speech crosses the line from an honestly held belief to bullying, attacks and intimidation, then the scales very obviously tip in favour of protecting the victim.
As if Maya were planning or hoping or campaigning to bully and attack and intimidate people.
I wonder if Mr Casciani is aware that women are sometimes subject to bullying, attacks and intimidation. I wonder if he’s aware that we’re sometimes subject to bullying, attacks and intimidation by trans people and their self-appointed allies.
And when I say “sometimes” I mean constantly.
Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, a charity that supports transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people, said: “This is not the win anti-trans campaigners will suggest in the coming days.
“We, as trans people, are protected by equality law and this decision in the Maya Forstater case does not give anyone the right to unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against us because we are trans.”
Again – nobody is planning to unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against you, and by the way could you stop doing it to us?
The BBC: institutional capture.
Literally NO-ONE on the gender-critical side is wanting to do ANY of that; might as well have said it doesn’t allow anyone to unlawfully kill puppies, or unlawfully burn down orphanages.
The case wasn’t about anything unlawful – it was about all people (including them!) having the right to a belief without being unlawfully harassed, intimidated, abused or discriminated against. So it is EXACTLY the win we wanted, and by bleating lies they are just going to lose even more support.
I must admit I find it funny that a group supporting trans “rights” named itself after a fictional creature. We all know mermaids don’t exist. Are they admitting that they know men are not women?
You’d think, but there’s this whole public relationsy type approach where trans people are Magic and Special and and and…Magic – and I think that’s what it’s meant to suggest.
Mermaids and unicorns…girl stuff, right? And non-threatening? So if their symbols are sweet, childish symbols that no one is afraid of, why be afraid of transwomen? They’re all special and magic, like you said.
Only…I think mermaids could be very threatening; in fact, in a young adult fantasy novel I wrote, I used mermaids as an obstacle in the way of my protagonist meeting her goal. They almost drowned her.
I’m far from being the only one to notice the sly framing. Twitter is apparently blowing up with “This decision [in the Maya Forstater case] does not give anyone the right to unlawfully…” comments with very inventive endings. It’s hilarious!
“…unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate…”
Here is the next legal hurdle that will come up so UK people who respect reality better get ready for it — a woman refusing to bow down to a man’s private fantasy image of himself either IS or IS NOT harassing, intimidating, abusing or discriminating against the man. So, we are at the point again, as always, of a man claiming that a woman’s refusal to cater to his beliefs is abuse.
My take is it is going to have to be argued on the basis of atheists versus believers. If I tell a Catholic coworker that I am an atheist and do not believe in god and will not follow the tenets of that faith, am I harassing, intimidating, abusing or discriminating against Catholics?
What Maya said that got her fired was very benign, and the trans cultists pissing their pants about abuse is ridiculous hype. Trans cultists misgender themselves with impunity all the time. If I were stupid enough to not know the biological difference between men and women, I would too. In fact, Bruce Jenner and Rhys McKinnon are men and I have ‘gendered’ (and ‘deadnamed’) them as I see fit, and they can’t force me to think or say otherwise. So sue me cultists, or take two running jumps and go stuff yourselves. That’s not nice is it, but the truth doesn’t care about nice, and we all have to live with the truth, even if we are ignorant or in denial of it. :P
This collection of tweets is hilarious:
https://lilymaynard.com/things-the-ruling-does-not-give-maya-forstater-the-right-to-do/
The Guardian’s grapes are similarly sour. They couldn’t quite bear to admit that Maya had won so their headline just said that she lost last time.
As Jean Hatchett wrote on Twitter: “Not today, fellas. Not today.”
The framing of the ruling as cast iron proof that GC people want to hurt trans people is no less enraging for its predictability, but Mermaids’ pre-emptive slurring is at least a slight change from their usual shtick:
I see this sort of thing often in the comments section of my local paper’s site:
poisoning the well (and acting as though doing good is bad).
Or, more insidiously still:
as though this kind of circular reasoning proves that (hypothetical) lefties, the lefty thing, and therefore anyone who might want to post to agree with the lefty thing, are automatically bad.
It’s misinformation rolled up with intimidation and hardly surprising to see Mermaids at it.
tigger:
Yes, I enjoyed watching some of those appear yesterday. It proves yet again that it’s the GC people who have the sense of humour. It’s been said that one sign of fanaticism is entirely losing one’s sense of humour about some aspect of one’s life. We see this all the time in this fight; GC women are outraged at the challenge to and erosion of their rights, for sure, but they joke about it, too. The TA’s… not so much, at least where I’ve seen.
Another great comment (I can’t remember where I saw it first) was “Maya Forstater threw the first brick at Stonewall.”
As I understand it, the nature of this pain is entirely mental (or psychic, in the non-supernatural sense). We already have a word for physical symptoms caused or aggravated by mental factors. Perhaps another word would be useful for mental symptoms caused or aggravated by mental factors, thoughts, or beliefs. How about “psychopsychotic”? eg.
Arrgh, formatting. I think I’ll just try to remember to always put in the <p> tags explicitly in future instead of letting WordPress™ guess badly.
Fixed now?
Yes, thank you!