Maya Forstater on Twitter: "So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?… https://t.co/ERKXs7ORYy"

@MForstater

Business and sustainable development. Accountability. Tax. Feminist test case. Media: Tom Gardner at Slater & Gordon 0207 657 1690 press@slatergordon.co.uk

https://medium.com/@MForstater

Joined September 2008

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Maya Forstater‏ @MForstater Nov 22

Report Tweet

This is what I believe about sex and gender identity...... My witness statement to the tribunalhttps://medium.com/@MForstater/claimants-witness-statement-abe3e8073b41 …

73 replies 296 retweets 869 likes

Show this thread

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @MForstater

It is quite well written, thanks. This makes it good to analyze. Notably in (20) you quote a great short definition of gender: "the social significance that we invest in sex". Then you proceed to explain why you believe sex to be socially significant.

1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

It logically follows that you believe in a form of gender, that is, social significance that must be properly invested in sex. This is not incompatible with believing that *other* forms of significance (stereotypes) were vested improperly.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

This puts the "gender critical" label under doubt but it has a debating, rather than legal, significance. Legally, your view seems similar to the view that True Marriage is between a man and a woman, backed by references to material significance of mothers and fathers.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

This view of marriage was, I think, expressly mentioned as acceptable in society during the same-sex marriage debate in Parliament. On the other hand, expressing this view at work can well trip discrimination or harassment statutes.

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

The Mackereth case establishes that it is right and proper, at least, to gag your view *at work*. You write in (71) that trans-inclusive spaces at work make you feel uncomfortable; the Mackereth case seems to answer "your own problem"; there's another too.https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/store-failed-to-take-the-grievances-of-a-transgender-staff-member-seriously-36612162.html …

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

But a very interesting question in your case is whether there is a legally recognized boundary where a view can be gagged at work and yet protected from discrimination when expressed off work.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

To be honest, I do not see this boundary in UK law. But then I am not a lawyer (nor in the UK, but the Republic of Ireland setup seems broadly similar - Northern Ireland on the other hand is different as political views are expressly protected there).

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Baddy Sea Lion Misha Ramendik MC1R‏ @ramendik Nov 22

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik @MForstater

Personally I would prefer that such a boundary would exist, and that views lawfully and properly disallowed at work could still be protected from employment discrimination when expressed outside work.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Maya Forstater‏ @MForstater Nov 26

Report Tweet

Replying to @ramendik

So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?

7:16 AM - 26 Nov 2019

1 Like

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

1. 12 more replies

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

Tweets

Maya Forstater

@MForstater

Tweets

Loading seems to be taking a while.

false

Saved searches

Tweets

Maya Forstater

@MForstater

Tweets

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

Promote this Tweet

Block

Tweet with a location

Your lists

Create a new list

Copy link to Tweet

Embed this Tweet

Embed this Video

Preview

Why you're seeing this ad

Log in to Twitter

Sign up for Twitter

Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

Confirmation

Welcome home!

Tweets not working for you?

Say a lot with a little

Spread the word

Join the conversation

Learn the latest

Get more of what you love

Find what's happening

Never miss a Moment

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Promoted Tweet

false