Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

That judgement was about the Forstater case. The result of which was that gender critical beliefs are not a sackable offence. Maya Forstater won that case for unfair dismissal.

What you can't do, obviously, is harass colleagues by deliberately dead naming them or using their old pronouns - because it's quite rightly against most companies terms of employment to harass people.

She wasn't sacked for saying anything unlawful. There were no UK laws broken.

I certainly wish you were prepared to be more honest.

View attachment 3017

I'm being perfectly honest.

This was the second Forstater case. The case [edit first case] was an Employment tribunal. Forstater claimed that she was sacked from her job for her belief. This was found to be untrue. She had a fixed term contract as a consultant, and her employer decided not to renew - as is their legal right.

She did not lose her job on the basis of a disciplinary procedure. She lost the case on the basis that of they didn't wish to renew.

In the first Judge Taylor criticised Forstater for the 'absolutism' of her views using that word. He did not rule that trans people change their biological sex. I agree with that position, as do the majority of trans people. The law says that the legal sex of trans women is that of women for all purposes with some available exceptions in exceptional circumstances.

She took the case to appeal. The purpose of an appeal is for a higher court to examine if the decision is wrong on procedural grounds or incorrect interpretation of law. The EHRC gave evidence that they interpret 'belief' not only applied to religious belief, but any belief.

This seems to have been accepted by the court. The court did not meet to further the so-called trans debate. It had a specific function as mentioned, so it would not have been appropriate or within its remit to have done so.

The ruling was headed up by those assertions of what it didn't mean, given the fierce nature of the arguments.

The ruling does not give carte blanche to misgender trans people.

So where we end up agreeing
1 trans people do not change their biological sex
2 the Equality Act protects legal sex, not biological sex
3 women are not made a 'subset of their species'
4 Forstater was not sacked for saying anything unlawful
5 harassment from using dead names or incorrect pronouns.

In the second case, the judgement sets out the four things that Legal Feminist reported.

Where we disagree is:
1 that you are 'compelled' or 'forced' to use correct pronouns
2 that misgendering can never be unlawful (not your exact form of words I will agree) but that is the essence
3 Forstater won her case for unfair dismissal

Addendum: I should have made clear that the first case was the employment tribunal which was lost. The second case was a claim that Judge Taylor's examination of 'belief' was correct in its application. This case was won.

 

[monkers]

I'm sure your attempt to police this debate is well-intentioned, but, should you read the thread in its entirety you will see it is a thread of 3 parts. There is, pretty much, only one person who has been present throughout.

There is a reason why so many have walked. Dishonest, low-grade debating tactics gleaned from zealot twitter-feeds and substacks are likely to rile, and they have.

Thanks, but I think there is more than one person, there are certainly at least two - theclaud and AS.

 

[multitool]

Thanks, but I think there is more than one person, there are certainly at least two - theclaud and AS.

You missed the end of part one, when theclaud gave up on her own thread because it had been steered away from the OP and onto somebody's monobore obsession.

For clarity, my post was in response to Rusty, not to you. You are doing an admirable job.

 

[monkers]

You missed the end of part one, when theclaud gave up on her own thread because it had been steered away from the OP and onto somebody's monobore obsession.

I'm prepared to take your word for it rather than read the 900 or so posts before I entered the discussion.

 

[multitool]

I'm prepared to take your word for it rather than read the 900 or so posts before I entered the discussion.

I'd advise taking my word for it

 

[monkers]

I'd advise taking my word for it

You can be so very cruel expecting me to read all of the other 900 pages.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You presented the Forstater case as proof that these things were unlawful - putting transwomen rather than trans women, not using preferred pronouns - when it did nothing of the sort. You can't tell us what laws these things break because they don't break any.

Anybody can google the Forstater case and see that it protects people from being dismissed for gender critical beliefs, and also, quite rightly, says you can't harass people who are trans by going out of your way to dead name them etc. Just like you couldn't use someones religion to harass them. If you did (Forstater didn't), that would not be 'unlawful' but would likely be grounds for dismissal.

 

[monkers]

You presented the Forstater case as proof that these things were unlawful - putting transwomen rather than trans women, not using preferred pronouns - when it did nothing of the sort. You can't tell us what laws these things break because they don't break any.

Anybody can google the Forstater case and see that it protects people from being dismissed for gender critical beliefs, and also, quite rightly, says you can't harass people who are trans by going out of your way to dead name them etc. Just like you couldn't use someones religion to harass them. If you did (Forstater didn't), that would not be 'unlawful' but would likely be grounds for dismissal.

You are still failing to be honest.

What I actually said was this ...

I said that not repeatedly not using a person's personal pronouns, can be unlawful. When you write 'tranwoman' instead of trans woman, and you write that 'they are all male', and then refuse to use their preferred pronouns, then there exists a case of failing to respect an individual or a group of people. Taken collectively, this lends strong evidence to legal opinion that your position is unlawful.

Note my careful use of language in that last sentence.

It does not say that a grammatical error is unlawful.
It does not say that merely saying trans women are male is unlawful
it does not say that use of wrong pronouns are unlawful.

What it does suggest is that if these are your behaviour in real life, then collectively they may lend evidence in pursuit of a claim, which if proven would demonstrate that you were acting unlawfully.

I've also explained that you have no need to do so since your beef is with the Equality Act which is a legitimate position.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'll leave you to it. Your wishful thinking cannot not magic up laws that aren't there. Must admit I lol'ed at 'grammatical error' though.

 

[monkers]

I'll leave you to it. Your wishful thinking does not magic up laws.

Yes I'm happy to leave you to it. You could listen to Mhari Black and her perfect explanation. You could try reading Feminist Legal that I linked you to which is a site written by feminist lawyers written by specialists in those fields. You'll learn a thing or two - I have.

 

[classic33]

They're not. If that is the case you should complain. Men have a right to privacy and dignity too.

See the bit where I said say anything and you're told....

The person holding the camera is female, and your more or less told to expect it. So much for privacy in single sex spaces. Toilets or changing areas are where my phone remains in the pocket. Even the ones with no camera built in.

 

[newfhouse]

I am not a great believer in homeopathic medicines.

I was talking about the disease, not the cure.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'm sure your attempt to police this debate is well-intentioned, but, should you read the thread in its entirety you will see it is a thread of 3 parts. There is, pretty much, only one person who has been present throughout.

There is a reason why so many have walked. Dishonest, low-grade debating tactics gleaned from zealot twitter-feeds and substacks are likely to rile, and they have.

QED....

 

[multitool]

Just watching QT and India Willoughby is doing a mediocre job of advocating for trans people. There is the truly gross Spiked writer, Ella Whelan, whose aggressive transphobia is spewing out.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm sure your attempt to police this debate is well-intentioned, but, should you read the thread in its entirety you will see it is a thread of 3 parts. There is, pretty much, only one person who has been present throughout.

There is a reason why so many have walked. Dishonest, low-grade debating tactics gleaned from zealot twitter-feeds and substacks are likely to rile, and they have.

No attempt to police the debate at all, well intentioned or otherwise. @monkers claimed that role in post #1286 and I agree with Sparks that "this town ain't big enough for the both of us".

No rules so people can contribute, or not, in the way they see fit and also, as I have, comment on the way the discussions are going.

It is a personal view of mine that I dislike it when people in a debate make assumptions about others' motivation rather than simply addressing the points raised.