1093 Judge rules against researcher who lost job over Trans tweets. Test case Feminist vs Trans, and Totalitarian Nanny State

Judge rules against researcher who lost job over Trans tweets. Test case
Feminist vs Trans, and Totalitarian Nanny State

Newsletter published on December 21, 2019

(1) BBC: Maya Forstater sacked for "offensive and exclusionary" language
in tweets on Trans
(2) Guardian: Judge rules against researcher who lost job over
transgender tweets

Now we hear from the BBC & the Guardian. In just a few days, this has
become a test case in the Feminist vs Trans clash, and on the
Totalitarian Nanny State - Peter M.

(1) BBC: Maya Forstater sacked for "offensive and exclusionary" language
in tweets on Trans
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50858919

Maya Forstater: Woman loses tribunal over transgender tweets

19 December 2019

A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their
biological sex has lost an employment tribunal.

Maya Forstater, 45, did not have her contract renewed after posting a
series of tweets questioning government plans to let people declare
their own gender.

Ms Forstater believes trans women holding certificates that recognise
their transgender identity cannot describe themselves as women.

But that view is "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", a
judge said.

Ms Forstater, who had worked as a tax expert at the think tank Center
for Global Development, was not entitled to ignore the rights of a
transgender person and the "enormous pain that can be caused by
misgendering", employment judge James Tayler said.

Ms Forstater was "absolutist" in her view, he concluded in a 26-page
judgement.

"It is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by
the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity
and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or
offensive environment," he continued.

"The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

Ms Forstater had argued "framing the question of transgender inclusion
as an argument that male people should be allowed into women's spaces
discounts women's rights to privacy and is fundamentally illiberal (it
is like forcing Jewish people to eat pork)".

Author JK Rowling is among people who have come out in support of Ms
Forstater.

Skip Twitter post by @jk_rowling

J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dress however you please. Call yourself
whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live
your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs
for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

Ms Forstater, who raised more than £85,000 through crowdfunding to pay
her legal bills, said in response that she was "blown away by the
support and interest in her case".

"All I ever wanted on this was for people to be able to talk about the
policy questions around sex and gender identity in a normal, open,
democratic way".

Gender identity is a matter of enormous public interest and there are a
range of different and strongly held views.

Some will regard this judgment as preventing people from expressing
their honestly held belief that a person born in a male body cannot
become a woman, without the threat of being dismissed from their job for
doing so.

Others will see it as much needed protection for the rights of those who
wish to identify as the gender they feel themselves to be.

Employment tribunal rulings are not binding legal precedents, but they
do have weight, and this ruling could deter others who share Maya
Forstater's views from bringing such cases in the future.

Ms Forstater's solicitor Peter Daly, of Slater and Gordon, said: "The
significance of this judgment should not be downplayed.

"Had our client been successful, she would have established in law
protection for people - on any side of this debate - to express their
beliefs without fear of being discriminated against."

(2) Guardian: Judge rules against researcher who lost job over
transgender tweets

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets

Maya Forstater’s view of sex ‘not worthy of respect in democratic
society’, employment judge finds

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

Thu 19 Dec 2019 10.09 AEDT Last modified on Fri 20 Dec 2019 05.34 AEDT

A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that
transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test
case because her opinions were deemed to be "absolutist".

In a keenly anticipated judgment that will stir up fresh debate over
transgender issues, Judge James Tayler, an employment judge, ruled that
Maya Forstater’s views did "not have the protected characteristic of
philosophical belief".

Forstater, 45, a tax expert, was a visiting fellow at the Centre for
Global Development (CGD), an international thinktank that campaigns
against poverty and inequality. Her contract at the charitable
organisation, which is based in Washington and London, was not renewed
in March after a dispute over publicising her views on social media.

She was accused of using "offensive and exclusionary" language in tweets
opposing government proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act to
allow people to self-identify as the opposite sex.

The Central London employment tribunal convened a preliminary hearing
over the issue of whether her tweets, such as "men cannot change into
women", should be protected under the 2010 Equality Act. She funded her
legal challenge through the CrowdJustice website.

Forstater has been supported by Index on Censorship. Its chief
executive, Jodie Ginsberg, has said previously: "From what I have read
of [Forstater’s] writing, I cannot see that Maya has done anything wrong
other than express an opinion that many feminists share – that there
should be a public and open debate about the distinction between sex and
gender."

But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed
her claim. "I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that
[Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component
of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered
appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

In response to the ruling, Forstater said: "I struggle to express the
shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will
be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.

"My belief … is that sex is a biological fact, and is immutable. There
are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls
are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very
recently understood as basic facts of life by almost everyone.

"… This judgment removes women’s rights and the right to freedom of
belief and speech. It gives judicial licence for women and men who speak
up for objective truth and clear debate to be subject to aggression,
bullying, no-platforming and economic punishment.

"I will consider the judgment closely with my legal team to determine
what can be done to challenge it."

Louise Rea, a solicitor at the law firm Bates Wells which advised the
CGD in the case, said: "Judge Tayler held that ‘the claimant’s view, in
its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and
fundamental rights of others’. He observed that the claimant was not
entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned
from male to female or vice versa and the ‘enormous pain that can be
caused by misgendering a person’.

"A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the
claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that
there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed
revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that
there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female
at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen
men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the
dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act
2010."

Peter Daly, of Slater and Gordon, representing Forstater, said: "The
significance of this judgment should not be downplayed.

"Had our client been successful, she would have established in law
protection for people – on any side of this debate – to express their
beliefs without fear of being discriminated against."

o The headline on this article was updated on 19 December 2019 to
describe the job of Maya Forstater more accurately.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/19/jk-rowling-trans-row-court-ruling-twitter-maya-forstater

JK Rowling in row over court ruling on transgender issues

Author defends researcher who lost an employment tribunal case over her
‘offensive and exclusionary’ tweets

Poppy Noor

Fri 20 Dec 2019 04.34 AEDT Last modified on Sat 21 Dec 2019 03.39 AEDT

Having not tweeted since November, JK Rowling broke her Twitter silence
to speak out in support of a researcher who lost an employment tribunal
case for using "offensive and exclusionary" language on Twitter.

Rowling tweeted about Maya Forstater, who lost her job at an
international thinktank after a series of tweets, including one in which
she said: "Men cannot change into women."

Rowling, who has 14.6 million followers, said in the tweet: "Dress
however you please (…) But force women out of their jobs for stating
that sex is real?" She referenced the case using the hashtag
#IStandWithMaya.


J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dress however you please. Call yourself
whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live
your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs
for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

Forstater lost her job as a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global
Development, an anti-poverty thinktank that has offices in London and
Washington.

She was accused at the employment tribunal of having retweeted
transphobic material, including a newspaper cartoon of a person flashing
two women at a London swimming pond, with the caption "It’s alright –
it’s a woman’s penis".

Court documents show that she had previously tweeted that "it is unfair
and unsafe for trans women to compete in women’s sport".

She was also accused of gendering a non-binary person, Gregor Murray.
Forstater responded: "I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be
referred to by the plural pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’… In reality Murray
is a man … Women and children in particular should not be forced to lie
or obfuscate about someone’s sex."

Murray is Scotland’s only openly trans elected representative, and was
previously suspended after using abusive language towards anonymous
protesters at London Pride, and also calling her a "terf"
(trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Murray apologised but said "terf"
should not be considered an offensive word.

James Tayler, the ruling judge, concluded that Forstater did not have
the right to ignore or deny the legal rights of trans people and said
her tweets were "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights
of others".

Judge Tayler said Forstater had not acknowledged the "enormous pain that
can be caused by misgendering a person". If she had won the case, Tayler
said, it would have set a precedent that would prevent employers from
dismissing staff expressing similar views about LGBTQ+ rights.

Forstater tweeted after the ruling to say she was shocked. She wrote:
"Judgement received. Bad news (for now) Stonewall law won this round.
Here is my statement in thread form. I struggle to express the shock and
disbelief I feel at reading this judgment."

Rowling had previously been criticised for liking a tweet that referred
to trans women as "men in dresses". Rowling’s representative later
blamed a "middle-age moment" for the like, and said it stemmed from the
author mishandling her phone.

1