Maya Forstater’s Reasonable Approach Under Attack by Radicals

We have seen that a Judge (James Tayler) has ruled Maya Forstater’s views are “absolutist,” did ““not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief” and is an “approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” As such, the Judge has ruled it is okay to fire Forstater from her job for daring to express her views publicly. In the future, it is not difficult to envision an extremist like Judge James Taylor wanting to sentence her to jail for such thought crimes.

To get a feel for just how extreme this Judge is, let’s consider some of Forstater’s tweets:

And

And

I would be happy to defend any of Forstater’s tweets. They are quite reasonable. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how it is reasonable to oppose her views.

Forstater displays all the tweets mentioned in the judgment against her:

If you go through it, it becomes more clear that I was on to something when I wrote:

This Judge does not sound qualified to be a Judge. So only certain philosophical beliefs deserve protection. That is something an activist, biased, partisan “judge” would say.

It’s one thing to be misrepresented by some internet troll. But a Judge? As part of some “tribunal” judgment? That is obscene.

This entry was posted in activism, trans ideology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Maya Forstater’s Reasonable Approach Under Attack by Radicals

  1. Ilíon says:

    I would be happy to defend any of Forstater’s tweets. They are quite reasonable.

    Well, except that her opposition to this totalitarianism (her word … and mine) is not grounded in the love of truth, but rather in the man-hating feminist (a sect of leftism whose sell-date seems to be expiring) hatred of men.

    ==”Because the places that women and girls get assaulted and harassed are *normal life*!!! At school. At work. In churches. At sports centres. On dates. In bars. On trains. In lifts. At conferences…“==

    We all know the code: we all know that she’s not saying what she literally wrote, but rather she’s accusing all men (but especially white men, and even more especially white Christian men) of “assaulting” and “harassing” all women.

    ==”I am perfectly happy to use preferred pronouns …“==

    As I said, it is not the love of truth which motivates her.

    And, this stance of hers is not reasonable, for it is contrary to the truth of sex as reflected in the actual English language.

  2. apollyon911 says:

    Agreed. This is called poetic justice. Feminists silenced any opposition as ‘misogyny’ and now they are experiencing it themselves. Their services are no longer required. The Prince of Lies has no more use for them.

  3. Ilíon says:

    A few of weeks ago, a “dirty old woman” whom I frequently take to and from her dialysis (*) appointments told be that if she were a little younger, she’d take me for a roll on the lawn. This is not the first time (**) in my life that a woman has treated me in this manner.

    Clearly, for years, I have been “get[ting] assaulted and harassed [in my]*normal life*!!!” by women.

    But, no one cares about my pain, or the pain of all the other men daily “get[ting] assaulted and harassed [in their]*normal life*!!!” by women.

    (*) The other day, a couple of ladies were discussing what they (or, more precisely, the tax-payers) are being charged for dialysis. The one said that it worked out to $6600 per visit (that’s $19,800 per week). That’s a ridiculous charge: and the “medical professionals” can get away with that wildly over-priced service because of “enforced charity” — government bureaucrats confiscate my limited wealth, under thread of violent death, and re-distribute it to politically-connected interests (less their handling fee, of course).

    (**) Now that I’m getting old myself, I expect that any such future “assault and harassment” will be from older women, rather than from younger.

  4. Ilíon says:

    This is called poetic justice.

    Exactly.

    For a couple of generations now, women — and not just the explicitly man-hating feminists — have been using the force of government violence to invade “male spaces” and to displace men whenever possible.

    And now, a despicable (and/or mentally-ill) sub-set of men are returning the favor.

    It’s really difficult, by which I mean impossible, for me to find *any* sympathy for the feminists. So, if I happen momentarily to be firing in the same direction as they, it’s only because I hate the lie and love the truth.

  5. Kevin says:

    Whether or not her position is grounded in truth, and whether or not she deserves it for being a man-hater, the point is that a judge has claimed that she can lose her job because she dared to deny that a male who “identifies” as a woman is in fact a woman.

    And as I mentioned in another thread, an entire American political party, the educational world, the corporate world, the entertainment industry, all or most of the sports world, and entire world governments – including Canada and most of Europe – would agree with this judge.

    This should terrify any sane person. The fact that most people may not ever be put in this situation is irrelevant.

  6. Ilíon says:

    Indeed, Kevin.

    But, I’m pretty sure that no one said that she deserves to be fired (and persecuted) for stating a plain truth. Rather, the point is that her firing (and persecution) is the logically inevitable result of the *other* lies that she and her erstwhile leftist allies are willing to countenance.

  7. Ilíon says:

    ==He who says ‘A’ must say ‘B’==

    That is: if Proposition B is a logical entailment of Proposition A, then to assert or affirm ‘A’ is implicitly to assert or affirm ‘B’; and, sooner or later, the implicit assertion must be, and shall be, made explicit.

  8. pennywit says:

    Unfortunately, the chief frame I have for approaching this is US law. In most jurisdictions in the United States, she would have no protection from being fired for her political opinions unless she held some government position and her opinions did not influence job conduct.

    A United States court would generally be enjoined from deciding whether her opinion is worth protecting. Instead, the court would simply determine whether local law prohibits discrimination based on political opinion or political affiliation, and whether the expressed opinions constitute political opinion or affiliation.

    The analysis for a public employee would be more complex; there, a US court would have to take into account how the expressed opinions affect the person’s ability to do her job.

    But, of course, this is an English judge’s opinion, available here. According to that opinion, the applicable precedent is Grainger plc v Nicholson, which sets out criteria for evaluating whether the belief should be respected for the purposes of the law. The final criterion strikes me as inimical to free speech:

    (v) it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

    I don’t care for this criterion at all. It invites the trier of fact to weigh in not on whether political opinion in general is protected, but whether a particular political opinion is worthy of legal protection. That doesn’t sit right with me at all.

    So I think the court made the wrong decision here. Either the law ought to prohibit discrimination based on political opinion, or it should not. I don’t particularly care for a court assessing the worthiness of a political opinion.

    That said, there are two caveats this principle, at least for me:

    1) There is a difference between holding noxious views and acting on those views. I would have no problem with a situation where the law prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals, and a person is dismissed (or faces consequences) for such discrimination.

    2) The courts of public opinion and the courts of law are two entirely different entities. If a person evinces transphobic opinions, others are certainly entitled to condemn those opinions as transphobic, or (if the person is in business) choose to take their custom elsewhere in protest of those opinions.

  9. Bilbo says:

    Mike, I agree with you. I wonder if there is an appeal process.

  10. Ilíon says:

    These cases should never even come come before a(n alleged) judge, much less need to be appealed.

    Remember, in lawfare, the process *is* the punishment. Even if the appeal eventually goes in her favor, as justice demands it should, the SJW crybullies have still won, because they were able use the nearly bottomless resources of the Bureaucratic State (*) to drag her through legal hell and limbo … at no cost to themselves.

    (*) Which is to say, the normal people, the taxpayers, were looted to pay for this travesty of justice.

  11. pennywit says:

    And as I mentioned in another thread, an entire American political party, the educational world, the corporate world, the entertainment industry, all or most of the sports world, and entire world governments – including Canada and most of Europe – would agree with this judge.

    I don’t quite agree. I am open to either side on the question of whether we ought to outlaw employment discrimination based on political affiliation or political opinion. I can see arguments both ways.

  12. pennywit says:

    Coda: There is also some daylight on whether we ought to outlaw employment discrimination based on political opinion, and whether employers ought to discriminate based on political opinion.

  13. Kevin says:

    Personally I think political belief should be a protected category from discrimination in the same manner that religious belief is.

  14. pennywit says:

    Personally I think political belief should be a protected category from discrimination in the same manner that religious belief is.

    I really, really don’t want to start a flamewar. However, in light of this statement, what are your thoughts on Colin Kaepernick? Do you consider his decision to kneel/sit during the anthem to cross the line from political belief/opinion into an action that justified the league basically blackballing him?

    For comparison, it is indeed illegal in the United States to fire an employee who is, say, an evangelical Christian. However, if that evangelical Christian employee tries to witness to fellow employees who don’t want to be witnessed to, the employer would be within its rights to discipline or dismiss that employee.

    For the record, I somewhat disagree with you. I think an employer should not dismiss employees for political opinion/affiliation, but I am also conscious, at least in American law, of an employer’s own First Amendment rights of speech and association.

  15. Kevin says:

    However, in light of this statement, what are your thoughts on Colin Kaepernick?

    To the extent that I’ve followed that issue (I don’t watch football so I have no idea how good a player he was), my understanding is that the problem is not so much his beliefs, but his behavior that was casting the NFL in a bad light. Had he spent his protest time on Twitter and between games, rather than on air during the national anthem (possibly the dumbest time he could have picked for sympathy), I suspect there would not have been such a big deal made of it. People on the right would call him an idiot but probably not much else.

    My very-progressive employer would be no different. I could be an old black gay Muslim transgender from Mexico, but if I am constantly and intentionally using my demographic features in a divisive manner that is causing internal strife and bringing negative news coverage to the company, they would be well within their rights to kick me to the curb. Disruptive behavior is one thing, but simply having an opinion? Not an offense.

    On a slightly different note, it would be quite hilarious and transformative if political belief was added as a protected class, because then we could add some new categories of bigotry and phobias to throw at each other. Conservaphobia!

  16. pennywit says:

    On a slightly different note, it would be quite hilarious and transformative if political belief was added as a protected class

    Are you trying to give me a headache? Some jurisdictions do prohibit employers and/or public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of political affiliation, although I am not sure how well this works out in reality.

  17. Ilíon says:

    Kevin:Personally I think political belief should be a protected category from discrimination in the same manner that religious belief is.

    And that willingness to use the violence of the State to violate the liberty (in this case, the rights of association) of other private persons or interests is exactly how we got into the ever-widening mess we’re in today. And the leftists are going to continue purposely making the mess worse, unless and until we repeal the “anti-discrimination” laws.

    It has *always* been illegal, for it is explicitly unconstitutional, for our governments in America to discriminate between this citizen and that when applying or enforcing the laws. But, that illegality has never stopped some bureaucrats and politicians from doing exactly that when they thought they could get away with it. And now, since the so-called Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and 1960s, we have a whole new behemoth of bureaucrats looking over the shoulders of everyone, Monday-morning quarterbacking the decisions we make and the associations we maintain, allegedly rooting out the sin of “discrimination” by private interests — and, meanwhile, the leftist bureaucrats and politicians continue and accelerate their illegal discriminations against non-leftists.

    == Not all sins may safely be made illegal. ==

  18. pennywit says:

    And now, since the so-called Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and 1960s, we have a whole new behemoth of bureaucrats looking over the shoulders of everyone, Monday-morning quarterbacking the decisions we make and the associations we maintain, allegedly rooting out the sin of “discrimination” by private interests — and, meanwhile, the leftist bureaucrats and politicians continue and accelerate their illegal discriminations against non-leftists.

    I thought your “taxing me is slavery” argument was familiar. In Heart of Atlanta vs. US, the hotel owner argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated their Thirteenth Amendment rights by requiring them to rent out rooms to blacks.

    Needless to say, this argument did not impress the Supreme Court.

  19. Kevin says:

    My post handily vanished due to a misclick on my part, so I’ll just condense to the most relevant parts

    Hypothetical: a black family wants to move into a town in which many of the business owners and citizens are KKK or sympathetic. Which does the “right of association” cover:

    The bank owner does not want to associate with them, and refuses the home loan.

    Grocery store owners do not want to associate with them, and refuse them service.

    Employers do not want to associate with them, and refuse to hire them.

    Emergency personnel do not want to associate with them, and refuse to assist them.

    Which of these situations is acceptable to you, based on the right of association?

  20. pennywit says:

    Allow me to add:

    Let’s say a landlord in the town, despite his racist inclinations, chooses to do business with the black family. How would you feel about local grocers, bank owners, and medical professionals refusing to provide services to the landlord because that landlord chose to do business with the black family?

  21. Ilíon says:

    some intellectually dishonest fool:I thought your “taxing me is slavery” argument was familiar …

    No one has said any such thing; some people *refuse* even to attempt to grasp what others have said.

  22. Ilíon says:

    What would I waste my time trying to guess how high will satisfy him when an intellectually dishonest fool commands me to jump?

  23. pennywit says:

    No one has said any such thing; some people *refuse* even to attempt to grasp what others have said.

    It’s precisely what you have said — you have repeatedly objected to the notion of taking your property to pay for social-welfare programs. You call it slavery. In the Unites States, social-welfare programs are financed by taxes. So, yes, it is precisely what you have said, and your thesis echoes the arguments raised in Heart of Atlanta.

  24. grodrigues says:

    Why shouldn’t an employer refuse to employ a black, a jew, a too-short a man, or some company refuse service to blacks, jews, people with tattoos, men wearing earrings, whatever? I confess I never understood the arguments for anti-discrimination and always though that Freedom of association trumps it. Unless the company is owned by the state (for then society as a whole has a share in the company so to speak) or has a monopoly, let them do as they please. Do they want alienate part of their customer base? Go right ahead. I would certainly not give them my money. Vote with your wallet and all that.

  25. Ilion says:

    Exactly, Grodrigues.

    Way back in the late 1970s, somewhere around by junior or senior year of college, I answered an ad for a small, local computer business. As I spoke to the owners, these things became clear to me:
    * they were ‘atheists’ … with Jewish grandmothers;
    * there was no way they were going to offer me the job;
    * because they didn’t understand the difference between an employee who would *demand* to kneel on the floor several times during every working day … and a Christian.

    The only thing that bothered me about the situation was the waste of my time … because the laws as then enforced would not allow them to openly state that they were not interested in hiring a religious person.

    On top of the violations of everyone’s Freedom of Association of the “anti-discrimination” laws, and on top of the on-going abuse of them by the leftists, the waste the time and resources of millions of people with dishonest EEOC charades.

  26. Ilion says:

    Isn’t it odd that these “anti-discrimination” hypotheticals never seem to hypothesize the very real world prejudice and discrimination of [pick-some-race] against whites?

  27. Kevin says:

    Because that has historically worked out so well for minority populations. The Negro Motorist Green Book comes to mind. I can’t even imagine what life would be like under those conditions.

    Tattoos and earrings are behavioral choices, and choices have consequences. But to take an example from the above book, what is the net gain to society when a book has to be published to ensure that black people can get food and hotel rooms on road trips due to bigots refusing them service over matters beyond their control?

  28. Kevin says:

    Ilion, do you read any conservative news sources? Bigotry by minorities against a majority demographic are reported frequently.

    As to the real-world effect, if every minority person in my area refused to serve white people, that would put me at risk of running afoul of maybe 3 percent of the population. Of those 3 percent, probably 99 percent do not own a business or hold a position where they are capable of holding my skin color against me.

    Now flip those numbers around. For a minority person, 97 percent of the population and virtually 100 percent of businesses and institutions hold power over whether they choose to serve you or not.

    About a half hour from me, a black family lasted less than a month before being chased out by people who said their kind doesn’t belong. Roughly an hour away is Harrison, AR, of KKK fame.

    It’s easy to stand uncompromisingly behind ideas when that idea only negatively impacts others.

  29. grodrigues says:

    @Kevin:

    “Tattoos and earrings are behavioral choices, and choices have consequences.”

    So presumably you are saying that if it is a behavioral choice then discrimination is ok, but it is not ok if it is based on some immutable characteristic like skin color? If that is what you are saying, that is a distinction without a difference. Gay, in the modern sense of the word, is also a life choice, whether or not it may a genetic predisposition (which is the most plausible). Many immutable characteristics (or at least, strongly predisposed on a genetic level) have stark behavioral consequences.

    At any rate, this is a distinction that, to me, is not string enough to trump of freedom of association. The KKK has the choice to open a shop in my street and I have the choice, not only to take my money elsewhere, but protest them until I lose my voice, align with like-minded neighbors to expel them through any legal means, etc. What is the problem with this arrangement? Too much freedom is a dangerous thing?

    “It’s easy to stand uncompromisingly behind ideas when that idea only negatively impacts others.”

    It is easy to moralize and preen when you have no good arguments. It is also highly pretentious because it implicitly assumes that I have never been, or will never be, on the receiving end of discrimination.

  30. Dhay says:

    > We have seen that a Judge (James Tayler) has ruled Maya Forstater’s views are “absolutist,” did ““not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief” and is an “approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

    I am glad to say that Judge Tayler’s ruling has since been overturned on appeal:

    A judge-led employment tribunal panel ruled in June [2021] that this view was a philosophical belief that should be protected under the Equality Act. …

    Forstater lost a preliminary hearing led by a London employment tribunal, with the judge ruling that her views did “not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief” and were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, as The Guardian reported at the time.

    But after appealing to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT), a panel … found that the initial tribunal had “erred in law” and that gender-critical views do not “seek to destroy the rights of trans persons”.

    The judge ruled that Forstater’s gender-critical views fall under the protected characteristic of “religion or belief” in the Equality Act 2010.

    https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/953619/what-are-gender-critical-beliefs

    Forstater’s “gender critical” views are legal, and worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.