Maya Forstater: Legal judgement on trans is a landmark
Freddie Sayers spoke to the former researcher about her court victory
When Maya Forstater first started expressing “gender critical” views in late 2018 (ie that biological sex is real and important), she was a researcher at a progressive think tank called the Centre for Global Development. Her views caught the attention of the bosses in Washington DC — and one dismissal, one tribunal verdict and an appeal judgment later, she now finds herself part of the history of gender laws in this country.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Today’s successful appeal establishes Ms Forstater’s views in law as a “philosophical belief” that must be protected from discrimination. This means that corporations, schools, government agencies or any other organisation cannot discriminate against people holding the mainstream view that men and women are different but equal, and that your sex doesn’t change even if you identify differently.
She joined Freddie Sayers on the latest episode of LockdownTV to tell us about her experience and what it means.
On today’s judgement:
Is it odd that it had to be defended like a religious belief?
On the influence of the Gates Foundation and Big Tech funding:
On the impact of trans ideology on gay rights:
But if you don’t accept that there’s a difference between men and women, then what does it mean to be gay or lesbian? Lesbian friends tell me that 40% of the profiles on lesbian dating sites are male. And it’s like a bad joke — a man saying, “I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body”. But they’re being subjected to that in their spaces, and their dating sites and their groups. And they’re being told that if they don’t accept that someone can be a lesbian in a man’s body, then that they’re a bigot.
On why she fought the case to protect women:
On the “Stonewall Stasi”
On the need for more pluralism:
This seems like an important development. It should be possible for people to legally challenge ‘cancellation’ due to beliefs, and there should be financial damages available to the cancelled person for loss of income, etc. The sooner individuals and institutions are held financially liable for cancellation the better.
A triumph for common sense.
Lets accelerate the process and make everything “protected” so we can then repeal the pointless law.
I find it scary that what I thought was an objective fact ie there is male and female sex with corresponding characteristics has turned into ‘a belief’ and more: I should be happy about it because it’s progress! We can now talk about this new belief and we should expect to have this belief protected. Well, at least not be called names.
Yes. The underlying and important question in my view is why ‘belief’ and not ‘objective fact’? Perhaps it is a question definition in law and if so, I would like to know why the difference.
40% of the profiles on lesbian dating sites are male
Are the imposters not rumbled when they turn up for a date? Or is this saying that they turn up, claim to be female on their own say-so, and then accuse their lesbian dates (who were expecting to meet a woman) of being bigots for noticing that they are in fact men?
This is very good news. Dare we hope that the protection of religious beliefs will be extended to those who hold what is still the official Co E belief with respect to the institution of marriage, namely that is designed for heterosexual couples? In the last year a teacher, an actor and a magistrate have been suspended for expressing these beliefs. Most disturbingly, a school chaplain has been sacked for telling the students that they should make up their own mind what to believe.
To add to what I wrote yesterday I have just dscovered that in its written statement the panel drew the comparison explicitly: “Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.”
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe