This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I have made quite a WP:BOLD edit to the article for several reasons. There was too much detail detracting from the main flow, too much repetition and reliance on quotes. Many of the quotes were unnecessary and seemed designed to present a particular view of the case rather than simply present the issues at hand. The overall tone strayed from WP:NPOV. There is not realistically enough content to necessitate multiple section headers. The opinion piece from NBC was just that, an opinion piece, and therefore not a reliable or necessary source, as there are other sources which qualify as direct reporting. In truth, I am uncertain that this case realistically requires its own article, but I am also unsure under which article its content could be moved to. AutumnKing ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Some editors have brought up that this article does not include many voices which support Forstater including after the case which they think may impact NPOV. I think that there is a structural issue which has caused this to happen. I have found a very large number of reliable sources which support the judgement in the case, I could add at least 10 more. However I'm finding impossible to locate any reliable sources which support Forstater during or after the tribunal ruling, only tweets, self published blogs and sites like Daily Mail, Spiked and The American conservative, non of which are reliable sources. Daily Mail is depreciated source listed as red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and whilst Spiked hasn't been assessed as a perennial reliable source Mediabiasfactcheck.com has assessed Spiked as 'Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed a fact check as well as publishing misleading scientific information'. I was able to find an inconclusive discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources here about Spiked, I'm unsure how to get it assessed as a reliable source for perennial sources but I'll look into it. Same for The American Conservative.
Thanks
-- Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor ( talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I would ideally like to add the fact from the evidence that Maya has tweeted an article called "Pronouns are Rohypnol", which contains material not only highly offensive towards trans people, but openly deriding workplace equality policies existing to support them (mandating preferred pronouns), including the policy that was in force in CGD. It is in the judgement (paragraph 34.2) and appears to be relevant to the employment discussion. Secondary sources that references this fact as important: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/15/uk-transphobia-transgender-court-ruling-puberty-blockers/ and https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/1/06/time-has-not-made-jk-rowlings-actions-any-less-terrible . It is also important as it links her case to another case, Mackereth, which was about mandatory use of preferred pronouns and was cited by CGD in the Forstater case: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997
However, the "Pronouns are Rohypnol" article itself is, in my lay evaluation, likely to be criminal hate speech in some jurisdictions including Canada and, with the recent law, Scotland. I would not want to open Wikipedia up to liability. (For this reason I am also not linking the article here).
Is there a way to add this reference without exposing Wikipedia to liability, in the event that the article is indeed criminal hate speech? Ramendik ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The reactions section has been significantly pared down to just a reaction from the plaintiff and the defendant. The other sections now removed were all opposed to the judgement and all were for Forstater, this is a bias and an NPOV violation. The article must retain balance and name dropping publications and blogs from universities does not give them any additional weight in this proceeding. It is merely opinion and giving them undue weight. The actions of an unrelated author to this case is a classic example of undue weight to a bit of news which only relates to the author and those reporting it. it is not related to the case. People are going to comment, and if you include one bit of comment from one side then an avalanche is easily justifiable. It is far more balanced and NPOV to simply include one from each side of the parties actually involved in this litigation. Also if comments by one intervener are included then you must include all of the interveners, not just selectively the ones who made public comment to the press.
This is going to be a controversial subject and is going going to likely be the subject of battleground mentalities by some who seek to push their side of this. This must not be allowed to happen or it will defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.
This is going to be an article where things will get heated because of what Forstater stands for and those views are very polarising. This article needs to stay out of the political debate and needs to remain neutral. If that fails discretionary sanctions are likely to be applied for to keep the page cool.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.That doesn't mean "no views". And WP:BIASEDSOURCES:
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I refrained from reverting on the last occasion, as this was falling into edit warring, so many thanks to the editor who reverted to status quo. With regard to the content, I am happy to address each one:
I will take each of your assertions one by one, they do not get over the NPOV issues and do not demonstrate these pass the neutrality test required.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy to respond;
@ Sparkle 1: I don’t know who you are addressing as ‘you boldly added’, since the wording before your latest edits was a combination of the previous wording, which was then amended by Crossroads and by me. So this was the existing version which you have boldly deleted and replaced. As I have said in previous edit summaries, the whole point of the appeal was on the question of whether the belief is "worthy of respect in a democratic society". By deleting this, you have made the article uninformative and misleading. If you believe that the current wording is not neutral, please pinpoint the exact elements which you object to. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1: sorry - looks like I misspelt your name. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Add the stuff you want in a separate section not in and amongst the actual section on the appeal judgement. the section of stuff you have added is from selective media outlets which have frankly not understood this judgement in a calm way. Which unfortunately is a serious issue when reporting legal stories. Each and every writer has a series of opinions and the way it has been inserted by using phrasing such as "won" and repeating without warning the stuff Forstater supposedly "believes is not helpful. the judgement appeal should be about that and the stuff you want should be in a reactions section, if at all in this article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a series of edits that are trying to be inserted which are editorialising the judgement. While these may include sources generally considered reliable, there has been a lot of opinion in these sources selected and they add a bias to the article. They also unnecessarily promote the views of Forstater which can be done in other sections of the article and there is a need to ensure that terms like "won" and "lost" are avoided when talking about the judgement as this is not a legally correct term and is an opinion of those interpreting the judgement. These additions need discussing before being foisted upon the article as they give a misleading and media spun view of the outcome of this very narrow appeal on a very narrow issue. This kind of editorialising should be in a different section to the appeal judgement if at all in the article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok this is now you edit warring and insiting on inserting your version this has now been reverted multiple times, go to the talk page of this page will result in escalation of this edit war. Talk page is calling you and that is where this must be discussed now
restore existing version - see Talk page- Wording of appeal section. And I added a section on the Talk page headed
Wording of appeal section.
Lovely for you to stay that user:Sweet6970 but have you actually analysed the articles in question. They are not legally accurate and are sensational reporting. They are also incredibly one-sided and seem to be furthering this myth that Forstater is above reproach from the outcome of this incredibly narrow ruling on a very narrow piece of law. Just because a source and lots of sources say the same thing and they are generally considered to be reliable, does not mean they actually are on this. Take the Spectator or the Times on Trans issues for example. They are incredibly anti-trans and spin a lot of myths and lies about trans people, yet are still considered overall reliable by Wikipedia. Just because an outlet is overall reliable doesn't mean everything it puts out is reliable. The articles themself must be analysed on their own merits. The UK media need to be viewed through the lens that they themself have put a dog of their own in this for some bizarre reason and fuel a lot of anti-trans reporting and misreporting. Like, where were the media reports on the AB case for parents being able to consent to Puberty Blockers for trans youth, virtually nothing, whereas the Bell case was wall to wall coverage.
This is a minor employment tribunal case on a very narrow piece of law. It has been blown out of all proportion by the media and large social media accounts, and well-funded anti-trans organisations. I know you will trot out but reliable sources are reliable that is simply not a 100% true statement and not a reason to fail to critically examine the actual stories and understand what this article actually is. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the version before what has now been reverted and that is where the section should go back to, [11] Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
In short, Sweet6970, I consider all of your addition on this part, not just parts of it to be not neutral and to be editorialising and not worthy of addition in this article. I oppose the entirety of the added bits in the section you have added. I have no problem with it in a reactions section though as long as it is neutrally worded. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It is actually the job of Wikipeida to determine if an article is reliable, otherwise, it would be that anything published by a source considered reliable would warrant inclusion even if it was wildly inaccurate, and the article was 100% wrong. The Lancet is a reliable medical Journal for example but if the Andrew Wakefield study on Autism and Vaccines was used as a reliable source it would be rapidly removed. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not make the article itself reliable. Same with the coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster blaming the fans, or The Lancet and the paper of Hydroxchloraquin. Sources may be overall reliable but not everything in them is reliable just because it is in an overall reliable publication. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
As I have said over and over, I have no per se objection to you adding the content you want in a reaction to the appeal judgement section. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lovely for you to say that…. Also, I have not added a section, merely made amendments. I don’t understand why you reject the wording which is based on reliable sources: it is Wikipedia policy to use reliable sources. The sources for the version which I restored were the Herald Scotland, the BBC and the Law Society Gazette. You still have not said what exactly is not neutral in the wording which I restored. Please stick to the point, and say exactly what in the wording you object to, and why. Also, your recent addition to the article ‘Aftermath of the appeal’ does not make sense. This is just part of the judgment. And your comment about adding a separate section regarding the appeal also does not make sense – the sources are reporting the actual judgment in the appeal. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
What I am saying is if you want to add these bits do it in a new section. I have no per see objection to that. The issue I primarily have is you have inserted hyperbole and trotted out what Forstater's views are in the judgement section, add that to a reactions to the appeal judgement section. You are not seeing that it is no neutral due to its location. I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article. See the Lancet example I used earlier. All reporting on the actual judgement, as you put it, is a reaction to the judgement and an opinion on the judgement. The only thing which is not is the judgement itself. Which is what should be the main and virtually the only thing in that section talking about the judgement is a reaction to it. This is not that hard to work out. Put your stuff in a new section and we have met in the middle you get your stuff in the article I keep it out of the section which it biases. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have made it clear I oppose ALL of it in the section they are wanting it in. I do not oppose selective parts of it. I have made a compromise proposal below which is curiously being ignored by people insistent on trying to flog this dead horse. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
For the benefit of JezGrove here is me originally objecting to all of the content not just parts of it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Add the information in a new section and keep it out of the section on the appeal judgement. The section can easily mirror the reaction section to the initial judgement. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article.. No, you haven’t. You have made no argument as to why the BBC and Herald Scotland sources are not reliable. These stories are news stories, not opinion pieces, and they merely report the judgment. And you have not mentioned the Law Society Gazette news story. You have refused to say what it is you object to, and why. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
JezGrove has made the following claim:
'If you are arguing that sections on legal judgements should only cite original court reports and no commentary on them, I am sympathetic provided you can either 1) point to a WP policy supporting that approach or 2) link to another WP article that follows it. JezGrove ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The village pump editors on the policy section have provided the following answers here. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, then I intend to restore the version of this article as it was at 14:46 on 17 June 2021 i.e. when I last edited it:
[12]
Sweet6970 (
talk) 10:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As one of the editors involved in the VP discussion: the BBC article here is factual reporting in a reliable source, in an article directly about the court case, and unless there are overwhelmingly many other RS that report differently on the facts of the matter, there is no good reason to question the reliability of the reporting here. Multiple RS have in fact reported in the same way on this court case. — Kusma ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(Starting a new section for convenience). Sparkle1 has made edits against the consensus in the section above. I am reversing them. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sweet6970 has made unconstructive and blanket reverts which include minor and unrelated amendments to this article.
Blanket reverting minor and constructive edits by Sweet6970, such as minor edits to parts of this that have never been in dispute, are not constructive and show a win at all costs mentality. Please act constructively and do not simply act in a blanket fashion. There must be a reading and a looking at of edits made before gung ho blanket reverting is made simply based on the user who has made them which is what I believe Sweet6970 has done here. I think this is getting out of hand where even constructive edits and minor edits are treated in a hostile fashion. There should be a cool-off period for all involved and then a coming back at a later date. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In the Law Society Gazette of 21 June 2021, there is an interview with Peter Daly, Ms Forstater’s solicitor. [13] It might be appropriate to include extracts from this, in a ‘Reactions’ section in this article. The comments which appear to me to be most relevant are:
a) Comments by Mr Daly
i) ‘At the heart of the case is a belief in the binary nature of biological sex, which the judgment makes clear is a fairly uncontroversial statement of law.’
ii) ‘There has been a great deal of misrepresentation. My client was labelled “anti-trans”, even though many trans people share her belief (the only trans woman heard in the original tribunal gave evidence in support of her belief). It was reported that Ms Forstater misgendered trans colleagues and was disciplined for doing so. None of this happened – there was no disciplinary action, she never misgendered any colleagues, and as far as she is aware had no trans colleagues. Others incorrectly predicted that a successful appeal would grant a legal right to declare in the workplace that women are inferior to men (it hasn’t).’
b) Comment by Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD
‘Following the ruling, Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD, said: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the tribunal judge] got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act."
What are other editors’ views on this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Personnel Today Gender-critical beliefs: Implications of EAT's Forstater decision - Personnel Today [14]
I would take this extract: 'The tribunal set the bar of “worthy of respect” far too high. The only beliefs that are actually excluded by that requirement are the most extreme beliefs “akin to Nazism or totalitarianism or which incite hatred or violence”.'
Scottish Legal News Louise Usher: Forstater v CGD Europe – are gender critical beliefs protected under the Equality Act? - Scottish Legal News [15]
I would take this extract: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA 2010 for trans persons. It is also important to bear in mind that, as a consequence of the recent Taylor v Jaguar Landrover decision, those identifying as non-binary are also entitled to protection. Therefore, it is incumbent on employers to ensure that their employees tolerate opposing beliefs and act in a non-offensive way to others.'
Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed all of Sparkle1's edits of 25 June 2021. None of them are helpful. Most of them just make the article more difficult to read by using abbreviations instead of the full names. (For instance, to most people, 'ET' is a film, not an employment tribunal.) Some of them are confusing - for instance, changing 'Tribunal judgment' to 'Judgment'. I do not understand how anyone could think that these changes are an improvement to the article. So I am reversing them. Please do not edit war over this. If you think that Sparkle1's version is better, then you should provide reasons.
It would be more helpful in improving this article if I had a response to my suggestions (above) for adding a section on reactions to the appeal judgment. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sparkle1 has reverted my change without giving any reasons. Why are abbreviations better than giving the full names? If you are acting in good faith, you would reply to my comments above, and not edit war. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The blanket reverts have been reverted as they are without any basis. Please see basic copy editing and understand that there is a need to improve this article for clarity and readability. You cannot demand that you keep the article static.
The editing of the article is standard use of pros, and toning down of some of the article. It seems to be that there is a want to over link, not include additional links which are helpful and non of the content has been modified to change any meanings. It is standard when writing an article in the first instance of the use of something that is going to be used over and over to be abbreviated. That is standard and not controversial. This is used and widely accepted over Wikipedia.
These are not confusing as this is clearly understandable with the subheadings they are included in. It is easier to read with fewer words and avoiding unnecessary repetition.
Standard copy editing is what has been done here. There is nothing in what has been done in the editing I have undertaken that is not a good faith improvement. There has been blanket removal of links to things such as other pages explaining Employment Law and Employment tribunals in the UK. If these are not seen as helpful then no changes could ever in my opinion be viewed as helpful. This is not edit warring this a genuine attempt to improve the clarity and pros in the article.
This is Basic copyediting Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Please also note I was responding when you posted the comments "you have not responded" You have to give people a chance to actually respond as opposed to jumping all over me as if I am acting in bad faith. I also provided a detailed edit summary. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
1) The purpose of copyediting The purpose of copyediting is not to make the article more difficult to read – which is what you have done.
2) Your changes have made the article worse
You have also introduced bad English, by changing She won this appeal because the appeal tribunal concluded that the belief that ….
to The appeal was allowed by the EAT after concluding the belief that….
Your version has the appeal ‘concluding’, whereas it was the Employment Appeal Tribunal which concluded that the belief that "biological sex is real, important and immutable" met the legal test etc.
Of course, it would be much clearer to say ‘ She won this appeal because…. ’ which was the previous, agreed, version.
How are your other changes an improvement to the article?
3) Link? Please direct me to where I have deleted links which are useful for understanding UK employment law.
4) You have not followed the recommendations on copyediting
‘Outside of direct quotes and names, contractions should be spelled out.’ So you have no justification for the abbreviations.
‘Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-based environment. Be bold in making changes, but if you find that your work has been undone by another editor, visit the talk page of the article and start a discussion before reinstating it.
You are the one who made the changes. Since I did not agree with them, and reverted them, you should have gone to the Talk page to discuss them. Instead, I had to do this. You then reverted me before going to the Talk page.
You failed to follow the usual etiquette. Why?
Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I have not read the above, it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive, and unnecessarily hostile with its use of bolding and the accusatory tone. Please remember to assume good faith and work collaboratively. If you see that improvements have been made in good faith and you wish to make further good-faith improvements please do. At the moment it feels like this is confrontational. That helps no one on this project and does not advance the quality of this article. Also, it feels like there is a determination to keep the article static. I suggest Sweet6970 and I both walk away from this for a while and allow the conflict to dissipate and the dust to settle. Sweet6970 you are coming across unnecessarily aggressively and are nitpicking where it is not going to further collaborative editing. Sparkle1 ( talk) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
For the information of other editors, I am choosing to not take the bait and am not engaging with Sweet6970, as I do not believe interactions with this user are constructive due to the nature and tone of the statements they are making. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers understands how abbreviations work. Crossroads You cannot leave some in and only remove some, you also cannot leave unexplained abbreviations in quotes. The edit you made only go to show you do not understand how abbreviations are done in articles and you are more determined to use this as a battleground and are more interested in winning than actually having a clue as to what the way to use abbreviations actually is. You cant just remove some, it's all or nothing. If it is nothing you must then expand the abbreviation used in quotes. Which you clearly had no idea you needed to do, showing you have no idea, in this and are out to attack me along with others here which is something I am going to push back against. Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Since I have had no objections to my suggestions above about reactions to the appeal, I am adding a section for this. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a new article in the Law Society Gazette on 12 July 2021 which is a legal analysis of the situation after the appeal judgment. [16] I would add to the Reactions to appeal section the following summary of this article:
In an article in the Law Society Gazette in July 2021, Tess Barrett, a solicitor, commented on the appeal judgment, which she said ‘is not a permission for those who hold gender critical beliefs to misgender with impunity and nor is it a removal of existing transgender rights.’ She also said: ‘Whereas the previous judgment effectively silenced those holding gender critical views, the EAT judgment means that neither view in the transgender debate is silenced. How those beliefs are communicated is what is key and this judgment does not entitle, and should not embolden, either side on the transgender debate to harass the other due to their beliefs.’
She stated: ‘On 28 June the CGDE and CGD announced that they will not be appealing the EAT judgment on philosophical belief to the Court of Appeal. This means that gender critical beliefs’ status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary.’
Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
How should the Reactions section be formatted? I put in subsection headings to divide them by occupation, which I think is reasonable, although I'm unsure how they should be ordered to give due weight to them. An IP user reverted my changes so I wanted to discuss it here.
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 10:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
From what I can gather, per this change to Maya's main page, alongside comments on social media (both from her and others), the case has now returned to the employment tribunal. According to this Twitter post Maya concluded her evidence section today. I'm unable to find any major reliable sources covering the tribunal at this time, and only this coverage from yesterday in the Cumnock Chronicle, a local Scottish newspaper.
As such, I'm not sure we can add anything to the article at this time, with the exception of maybe checking the Woman's Hour segment for any new WP:ABOUTSELF statements. This hopefully will change pending the outcome of the tribunal, though at this stage it's unclear as to when a decision is expected nor immediately clear how much longer proceedings will continue for. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to note, earlier I fixed Template:Cite BAILII so that it supports both UKET and UKEAT cases. As such I've now gone and replaced the references that previously linked to gov.uk to the corresponding entries on BAILII. In the process I also removed a duplicate reference, though there is one remaining GOV.UK citation (cite 8 in the current list, ref name="Appeal") that I'm not yet sure how to handle. Unlike the other two case citations, this refers a specific page in the URL. I think it's OK to condense this into the BAILII cite for the EAT ruling, as the exact phrase is searchable within that document. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: I saw that you reverted a change I made earlier. I have two objections to that sentence. The first is that it contains repeated content from the third paragraph, which already states that the EAT found that Forstater's beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, albeit in a different phrase. Per MOS:REDUNDANCY we should avoid that.
The second is its position, chronologically it does not fit in the first paragraph of the lead. It does not make sense to refer to what happened in appeal judgement before discussing the original ruling. Per WP:AUDIENCE, we need to consider the reader and what details they will be getting from the lead. By putting that ahead of the original ruling, the reader is missing vital context as to why that ruling was important to this case, and to a lesser degree (within the context of this article) what impact it may have on similar cases in the future. Again per MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL this is something we should avoid.
If it is felt that this specific phrase is important to have as illuded to in your edit summary, and I agree that it is one of the few things that have been decided about this case, then we can include it. However it should not be in the first paragraph as the first paragraph currently stands. Either it should be in the third paragraph, so that it is placed chronologically with respect to the other relevant content from the appeal tribunal, or an additional sentence needs to be added prior to it in the first paragraph, summarising why Forstater's case needed to go to the appeal tribunal. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Forstater appealed the initial rulingwould suffice, and could possibly even be appended into the previous point.
Firstly, the lede in this article has been stable for months, so you and others have accepted itseems to be spurious reasoning. There are several reasons the lead text might be stable, and while stability is a kind of virtue in itself, it does not at all imply that other editors (who may not even have read the text in question, or who may have held off on expressing their concerns for various reasons)
have accepted it. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
fairly obvious reason,please explain it. For instance, how does the current wording
mislead our readers? What is
the context? It is a simple statement about the current law on the subject. And I disagree that a stable version has not been accepted: this does not make sense.
This isn't suggested text, but as an example, the first source on the appeal that we actually cite in our article says in its lead section, The victory for Maya Forstater, who was also backed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, means people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs must not be sacked simply for holding them. However, they cannot express them in a way that discriminates against trans people.
That seems about right, in terms of context and balance. By contrast, the current lead of our article misleads our readers by leaving out the second thing, and also by presenting the first thing in a less nuanced way.
Newimpartial (
talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
though this does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way which discriminates against trans people' in brackets to the end of the 2nd sentence. But that’s rather different from a complete re-writing of the lede, which I understood was being proposed. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
a complete re-writing of the ledeas I thought I had been clear that my proposals were either moving the final sentence of the first paragraph to the third paragraph, or inserting one to two new sentences into the first paragraph before the final sentence. The remainder of the lead would remain as it currently is. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
otherwise…. allow one protected class under the equality act to impinge upon anotherbecause that’s not the way the law on discrimination works.
In Scottish Legal News Louise Usher said: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA [Equality Act] 2010 for trans persons.[my emphasis] and a comment made by Tess Barrett, a solicitor, in an article in the Law Society Gazette:
"This means that gender critical beliefs' status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary."[my emphasis]
the significance of the caseincludes both elements (the finding and the qualification). What I am calling OR is your unswerving belief that
The significance of this case resides in the first part of the sentence- quoting critics whose concern is about the first part does not really establish that it is
the significance of this casein the absence of the context provided by the second part. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.
This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct: see footnote 1.
On a very abstract level, I can see what Sweet is saying. On my understanding of the case, the strict legal point that the case decided was that the stated beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society. It did not strictly decide that those beliefs cannot be expressed in discriminatory ways, because that point was never in dispute. As I understand the case, Forstater is not arguing that she is entitled to discriminate.
However, while that point may be important to lawyers, I completely agree that, as a matter of substance, the qualification is important and should be mentioned. And I certainly agree that separating it off by brackets is not appropriate. So what about the following wording:
"The Employment Appeal Tribunal established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, in its judgment, the Tribunal clarified that this finding does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way that discriminates against trans people." Telanian7790 ( talk) 11:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted edits to the leading which appear to be an attempt to downplay the judgment, and portray it as a loss for Forstater. This is not supported either by the judgment itself, or by the published sources. It also appears to be a misunderstanding of UK law, and specifically, the way in which employment tribunals work. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C80E:E153:15E0:DDFB ( talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The judgment on compensation is that in total, £106,404 is awarded to Forstater. Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [19] Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
RE: this edit, the prior chronology was more accurate.
Her work contract expired in December 2018 with the expectation of renewal. After that she was technically an applicant for employment, and there was ongoing discussion about continuing her employment on a different project, her status as a visiting fellow, the investigation into her beliefs - all of which encompassed CGD's discriminatory conduct towards her, until the relationship broke down in March 2019. Void if removed ( talk) 11:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thereafter there were potential issues as to whether the Visiting Fellowship came to an end by virtue of not being renewed on 31 October 2018, or continued until Mr Ahmed told Ms Forstater that it would not be renewed on 28 February 2019, on the basis that the general expectation was that a Visiting Fellowship would be renewed for a third year. There was also a potential issue as to whether Ms Forstater had continued to work under the terms of the fourth contract into January and February 2019 because, although the expressed end date of that contract was the end of 2018, she was still completing some of the work that was necessary under it into the new year.
The Tribunal had no doubt that if the correct view was that the contract had come to an end on 31 October 2018, or 31 December 2018, or at the point when Ms Forstater ceased work under the fourth contract, that the matters complained of arose out of and were closely connected to the employment relationship.
On 15 March 2019 she presented this claim to the Employment Tribunal.
Since it got brought up... I really don't see how their opinion is notable. Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan are redlinks, there's no evidence of much substantial references to the paper that I can find, and the paper as a whole barely mentions Forstater in the first place - The quote that was being used about Forstater is literally the entirety of the commentary on Forstater in the article. Reliable source or not, it's a trivial mention by apparently non-notable people being given its own paragraph, and that's a problem. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The rights and humanity of women have historically been discounted, and attempts to silence women with threats of violence and slanderous attacks on our reputations are as old as history. Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’
some TERF journalist's propaganda" so you're not off to a flying start proving them wrong. Void if removed ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The decision generated some critical comment almost immediately. One experienced barrister in the discrimination law field – and who, it should be noted, had appeared for the intervening Equality and Human Rights Commission in Forstater – assessed that ‘It is difficult then to conclude otherwise than that the Judge got it wrong’. Tellingly, a differently constituted ET criticised the decision in no uncertain terms: > "The belief that sex and gender are ‘set at birth’ may be upsetting to certain people but if freedom of speech and the rights within articles 9 and 10 of the Convention only extended to expressions of belief that could upset no-one they would be worthless. Essentially, to find as the tribunals did in [Forstater] would amount to a declaration that it is ‘open season’ on people that hold and express the beliefs in question – that they do not deserve protection. That seemed to us to be a strange and somewhat disturbing conclusion."
But, anyway, Void if removed, you proposed trimming the sections outright. That seems like a more productive way forward than discussing a minor source that doesn't have much to say anyway. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Adam Cuerden: In your edit summary here
[20], you say ‘this is probably better handled in the appeal
’ but you have not moved the material to the appeal section. It is significant that Index on Censorship and the Equality and Human Rights Commission were given leave to intervene in the appeal, but this is not now included in the article. What are your proposals on this?
Sweet6970 (
talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I've cut a bit of Forstater's lawyer's statements. It's awkward to quote his... debunking, I guess?" of claimed misrepresentation of her when the claimed misrepresentation don't appear in the article, especially when he's characterising a witness' view as part of it, which does lean towards BLP issues. Since it's written in emotive, persuasive speech, it gives a lot of legitimacy to the interpretations it advocates for that probably goes beyond the WP:NPOV we're striving for. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I have made quite a WP:BOLD edit to the article for several reasons. There was too much detail detracting from the main flow, too much repetition and reliance on quotes. Many of the quotes were unnecessary and seemed designed to present a particular view of the case rather than simply present the issues at hand. The overall tone strayed from WP:NPOV. There is not realistically enough content to necessitate multiple section headers. The opinion piece from NBC was just that, an opinion piece, and therefore not a reliable or necessary source, as there are other sources which qualify as direct reporting. In truth, I am uncertain that this case realistically requires its own article, but I am also unsure under which article its content could be moved to. AutumnKing ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Some editors have brought up that this article does not include many voices which support Forstater including after the case which they think may impact NPOV. I think that there is a structural issue which has caused this to happen. I have found a very large number of reliable sources which support the judgement in the case, I could add at least 10 more. However I'm finding impossible to locate any reliable sources which support Forstater during or after the tribunal ruling, only tweets, self published blogs and sites like Daily Mail, Spiked and The American conservative, non of which are reliable sources. Daily Mail is depreciated source listed as red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and whilst Spiked hasn't been assessed as a perennial reliable source Mediabiasfactcheck.com has assessed Spiked as 'Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed a fact check as well as publishing misleading scientific information'. I was able to find an inconclusive discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources here about Spiked, I'm unsure how to get it assessed as a reliable source for perennial sources but I'll look into it. Same for The American Conservative.
Thanks
-- Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor ( talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I would ideally like to add the fact from the evidence that Maya has tweeted an article called "Pronouns are Rohypnol", which contains material not only highly offensive towards trans people, but openly deriding workplace equality policies existing to support them (mandating preferred pronouns), including the policy that was in force in CGD. It is in the judgement (paragraph 34.2) and appears to be relevant to the employment discussion. Secondary sources that references this fact as important: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/15/uk-transphobia-transgender-court-ruling-puberty-blockers/ and https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/1/06/time-has-not-made-jk-rowlings-actions-any-less-terrible . It is also important as it links her case to another case, Mackereth, which was about mandatory use of preferred pronouns and was cited by CGD in the Forstater case: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997
However, the "Pronouns are Rohypnol" article itself is, in my lay evaluation, likely to be criminal hate speech in some jurisdictions including Canada and, with the recent law, Scotland. I would not want to open Wikipedia up to liability. (For this reason I am also not linking the article here).
Is there a way to add this reference without exposing Wikipedia to liability, in the event that the article is indeed criminal hate speech? Ramendik ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The reactions section has been significantly pared down to just a reaction from the plaintiff and the defendant. The other sections now removed were all opposed to the judgement and all were for Forstater, this is a bias and an NPOV violation. The article must retain balance and name dropping publications and blogs from universities does not give them any additional weight in this proceeding. It is merely opinion and giving them undue weight. The actions of an unrelated author to this case is a classic example of undue weight to a bit of news which only relates to the author and those reporting it. it is not related to the case. People are going to comment, and if you include one bit of comment from one side then an avalanche is easily justifiable. It is far more balanced and NPOV to simply include one from each side of the parties actually involved in this litigation. Also if comments by one intervener are included then you must include all of the interveners, not just selectively the ones who made public comment to the press.
This is going to be a controversial subject and is going going to likely be the subject of battleground mentalities by some who seek to push their side of this. This must not be allowed to happen or it will defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.
This is going to be an article where things will get heated because of what Forstater stands for and those views are very polarising. This article needs to stay out of the political debate and needs to remain neutral. If that fails discretionary sanctions are likely to be applied for to keep the page cool.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.That doesn't mean "no views". And WP:BIASEDSOURCES:
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I refrained from reverting on the last occasion, as this was falling into edit warring, so many thanks to the editor who reverted to status quo. With regard to the content, I am happy to address each one:
I will take each of your assertions one by one, they do not get over the NPOV issues and do not demonstrate these pass the neutrality test required.
Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy to respond;
@ Sparkle 1: I don’t know who you are addressing as ‘you boldly added’, since the wording before your latest edits was a combination of the previous wording, which was then amended by Crossroads and by me. So this was the existing version which you have boldly deleted and replaced. As I have said in previous edit summaries, the whole point of the appeal was on the question of whether the belief is "worthy of respect in a democratic society". By deleting this, you have made the article uninformative and misleading. If you believe that the current wording is not neutral, please pinpoint the exact elements which you object to. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1: sorry - looks like I misspelt your name. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Add the stuff you want in a separate section not in and amongst the actual section on the appeal judgement. the section of stuff you have added is from selective media outlets which have frankly not understood this judgement in a calm way. Which unfortunately is a serious issue when reporting legal stories. Each and every writer has a series of opinions and the way it has been inserted by using phrasing such as "won" and repeating without warning the stuff Forstater supposedly "believes is not helpful. the judgement appeal should be about that and the stuff you want should be in a reactions section, if at all in this article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a series of edits that are trying to be inserted which are editorialising the judgement. While these may include sources generally considered reliable, there has been a lot of opinion in these sources selected and they add a bias to the article. They also unnecessarily promote the views of Forstater which can be done in other sections of the article and there is a need to ensure that terms like "won" and "lost" are avoided when talking about the judgement as this is not a legally correct term and is an opinion of those interpreting the judgement. These additions need discussing before being foisted upon the article as they give a misleading and media spun view of the outcome of this very narrow appeal on a very narrow issue. This kind of editorialising should be in a different section to the appeal judgement if at all in the article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok this is now you edit warring and insiting on inserting your version this has now been reverted multiple times, go to the talk page of this page will result in escalation of this edit war. Talk page is calling you and that is where this must be discussed now
restore existing version - see Talk page- Wording of appeal section. And I added a section on the Talk page headed
Wording of appeal section.
Lovely for you to stay that user:Sweet6970 but have you actually analysed the articles in question. They are not legally accurate and are sensational reporting. They are also incredibly one-sided and seem to be furthering this myth that Forstater is above reproach from the outcome of this incredibly narrow ruling on a very narrow piece of law. Just because a source and lots of sources say the same thing and they are generally considered to be reliable, does not mean they actually are on this. Take the Spectator or the Times on Trans issues for example. They are incredibly anti-trans and spin a lot of myths and lies about trans people, yet are still considered overall reliable by Wikipedia. Just because an outlet is overall reliable doesn't mean everything it puts out is reliable. The articles themself must be analysed on their own merits. The UK media need to be viewed through the lens that they themself have put a dog of their own in this for some bizarre reason and fuel a lot of anti-trans reporting and misreporting. Like, where were the media reports on the AB case for parents being able to consent to Puberty Blockers for trans youth, virtually nothing, whereas the Bell case was wall to wall coverage.
This is a minor employment tribunal case on a very narrow piece of law. It has been blown out of all proportion by the media and large social media accounts, and well-funded anti-trans organisations. I know you will trot out but reliable sources are reliable that is simply not a 100% true statement and not a reason to fail to critically examine the actual stories and understand what this article actually is. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the version before what has now been reverted and that is where the section should go back to, [11] Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
In short, Sweet6970, I consider all of your addition on this part, not just parts of it to be not neutral and to be editorialising and not worthy of addition in this article. I oppose the entirety of the added bits in the section you have added. I have no problem with it in a reactions section though as long as it is neutrally worded. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It is actually the job of Wikipeida to determine if an article is reliable, otherwise, it would be that anything published by a source considered reliable would warrant inclusion even if it was wildly inaccurate, and the article was 100% wrong. The Lancet is a reliable medical Journal for example but if the Andrew Wakefield study on Autism and Vaccines was used as a reliable source it would be rapidly removed. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not make the article itself reliable. Same with the coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster blaming the fans, or The Lancet and the paper of Hydroxchloraquin. Sources may be overall reliable but not everything in them is reliable just because it is in an overall reliable publication. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
As I have said over and over, I have no per se objection to you adding the content you want in a reaction to the appeal judgement section. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lovely for you to say that…. Also, I have not added a section, merely made amendments. I don’t understand why you reject the wording which is based on reliable sources: it is Wikipedia policy to use reliable sources. The sources for the version which I restored were the Herald Scotland, the BBC and the Law Society Gazette. You still have not said what exactly is not neutral in the wording which I restored. Please stick to the point, and say exactly what in the wording you object to, and why. Also, your recent addition to the article ‘Aftermath of the appeal’ does not make sense. This is just part of the judgment. And your comment about adding a separate section regarding the appeal also does not make sense – the sources are reporting the actual judgment in the appeal. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
What I am saying is if you want to add these bits do it in a new section. I have no per see objection to that. The issue I primarily have is you have inserted hyperbole and trotted out what Forstater's views are in the judgement section, add that to a reactions to the appeal judgement section. You are not seeing that it is no neutral due to its location. I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article. See the Lancet example I used earlier. All reporting on the actual judgement, as you put it, is a reaction to the judgement and an opinion on the judgement. The only thing which is not is the judgement itself. Which is what should be the main and virtually the only thing in that section talking about the judgement is a reaction to it. This is not that hard to work out. Put your stuff in a new section and we have met in the middle you get your stuff in the article I keep it out of the section which it biases. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have made it clear I oppose ALL of it in the section they are wanting it in. I do not oppose selective parts of it. I have made a compromise proposal below which is curiously being ignored by people insistent on trying to flog this dead horse. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
For the benefit of JezGrove here is me originally objecting to all of the content not just parts of it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Add the information in a new section and keep it out of the section on the appeal judgement. The section can easily mirror the reaction section to the initial judgement. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article.. No, you haven’t. You have made no argument as to why the BBC and Herald Scotland sources are not reliable. These stories are news stories, not opinion pieces, and they merely report the judgment. And you have not mentioned the Law Society Gazette news story. You have refused to say what it is you object to, and why. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
JezGrove has made the following claim:
'If you are arguing that sections on legal judgements should only cite original court reports and no commentary on them, I am sympathetic provided you can either 1) point to a WP policy supporting that approach or 2) link to another WP article that follows it. JezGrove ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The village pump editors on the policy section have provided the following answers here. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, then I intend to restore the version of this article as it was at 14:46 on 17 June 2021 i.e. when I last edited it:
[12]
Sweet6970 (
talk) 10:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As one of the editors involved in the VP discussion: the BBC article here is factual reporting in a reliable source, in an article directly about the court case, and unless there are overwhelmingly many other RS that report differently on the facts of the matter, there is no good reason to question the reliability of the reporting here. Multiple RS have in fact reported in the same way on this court case. — Kusma ( talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(Starting a new section for convenience). Sparkle1 has made edits against the consensus in the section above. I am reversing them. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sweet6970 has made unconstructive and blanket reverts which include minor and unrelated amendments to this article.
Blanket reverting minor and constructive edits by Sweet6970, such as minor edits to parts of this that have never been in dispute, are not constructive and show a win at all costs mentality. Please act constructively and do not simply act in a blanket fashion. There must be a reading and a looking at of edits made before gung ho blanket reverting is made simply based on the user who has made them which is what I believe Sweet6970 has done here. I think this is getting out of hand where even constructive edits and minor edits are treated in a hostile fashion. There should be a cool-off period for all involved and then a coming back at a later date. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In the Law Society Gazette of 21 June 2021, there is an interview with Peter Daly, Ms Forstater’s solicitor. [13] It might be appropriate to include extracts from this, in a ‘Reactions’ section in this article. The comments which appear to me to be most relevant are:
a) Comments by Mr Daly
i) ‘At the heart of the case is a belief in the binary nature of biological sex, which the judgment makes clear is a fairly uncontroversial statement of law.’
ii) ‘There has been a great deal of misrepresentation. My client was labelled “anti-trans”, even though many trans people share her belief (the only trans woman heard in the original tribunal gave evidence in support of her belief). It was reported that Ms Forstater misgendered trans colleagues and was disciplined for doing so. None of this happened – there was no disciplinary action, she never misgendered any colleagues, and as far as she is aware had no trans colleagues. Others incorrectly predicted that a successful appeal would grant a legal right to declare in the workplace that women are inferior to men (it hasn’t).’
b) Comment by Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD
‘Following the ruling, Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD, said: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the tribunal judge] got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act."
What are other editors’ views on this? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Personnel Today Gender-critical beliefs: Implications of EAT's Forstater decision - Personnel Today [14]
I would take this extract: 'The tribunal set the bar of “worthy of respect” far too high. The only beliefs that are actually excluded by that requirement are the most extreme beliefs “akin to Nazism or totalitarianism or which incite hatred or violence”.'
Scottish Legal News Louise Usher: Forstater v CGD Europe – are gender critical beliefs protected under the Equality Act? - Scottish Legal News [15]
I would take this extract: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA 2010 for trans persons. It is also important to bear in mind that, as a consequence of the recent Taylor v Jaguar Landrover decision, those identifying as non-binary are also entitled to protection. Therefore, it is incumbent on employers to ensure that their employees tolerate opposing beliefs and act in a non-offensive way to others.'
Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed all of Sparkle1's edits of 25 June 2021. None of them are helpful. Most of them just make the article more difficult to read by using abbreviations instead of the full names. (For instance, to most people, 'ET' is a film, not an employment tribunal.) Some of them are confusing - for instance, changing 'Tribunal judgment' to 'Judgment'. I do not understand how anyone could think that these changes are an improvement to the article. So I am reversing them. Please do not edit war over this. If you think that Sparkle1's version is better, then you should provide reasons.
It would be more helpful in improving this article if I had a response to my suggestions (above) for adding a section on reactions to the appeal judgment. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sparkle1 has reverted my change without giving any reasons. Why are abbreviations better than giving the full names? If you are acting in good faith, you would reply to my comments above, and not edit war. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The blanket reverts have been reverted as they are without any basis. Please see basic copy editing and understand that there is a need to improve this article for clarity and readability. You cannot demand that you keep the article static.
The editing of the article is standard use of pros, and toning down of some of the article. It seems to be that there is a want to over link, not include additional links which are helpful and non of the content has been modified to change any meanings. It is standard when writing an article in the first instance of the use of something that is going to be used over and over to be abbreviated. That is standard and not controversial. This is used and widely accepted over Wikipedia.
These are not confusing as this is clearly understandable with the subheadings they are included in. It is easier to read with fewer words and avoiding unnecessary repetition.
Standard copy editing is what has been done here. There is nothing in what has been done in the editing I have undertaken that is not a good faith improvement. There has been blanket removal of links to things such as other pages explaining Employment Law and Employment tribunals in the UK. If these are not seen as helpful then no changes could ever in my opinion be viewed as helpful. This is not edit warring this a genuine attempt to improve the clarity and pros in the article.
This is Basic copyediting Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Please also note I was responding when you posted the comments "you have not responded" You have to give people a chance to actually respond as opposed to jumping all over me as if I am acting in bad faith. I also provided a detailed edit summary. Sparkle1 ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
1) The purpose of copyediting The purpose of copyediting is not to make the article more difficult to read – which is what you have done.
2) Your changes have made the article worse
You have also introduced bad English, by changing She won this appeal because the appeal tribunal concluded that the belief that ….
to The appeal was allowed by the EAT after concluding the belief that….
Your version has the appeal ‘concluding’, whereas it was the Employment Appeal Tribunal which concluded that the belief that "biological sex is real, important and immutable" met the legal test etc.
Of course, it would be much clearer to say ‘ She won this appeal because…. ’ which was the previous, agreed, version.
How are your other changes an improvement to the article?
3) Link? Please direct me to where I have deleted links which are useful for understanding UK employment law.
4) You have not followed the recommendations on copyediting
‘Outside of direct quotes and names, contractions should be spelled out.’ So you have no justification for the abbreviations.
‘Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-based environment. Be bold in making changes, but if you find that your work has been undone by another editor, visit the talk page of the article and start a discussion before reinstating it.
You are the one who made the changes. Since I did not agree with them, and reverted them, you should have gone to the Talk page to discuss them. Instead, I had to do this. You then reverted me before going to the Talk page.
You failed to follow the usual etiquette. Why?
Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I have not read the above, it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive, and unnecessarily hostile with its use of bolding and the accusatory tone. Please remember to assume good faith and work collaboratively. If you see that improvements have been made in good faith and you wish to make further good-faith improvements please do. At the moment it feels like this is confrontational. That helps no one on this project and does not advance the quality of this article. Also, it feels like there is a determination to keep the article static. I suggest Sweet6970 and I both walk away from this for a while and allow the conflict to dissipate and the dust to settle. Sweet6970 you are coming across unnecessarily aggressively and are nitpicking where it is not going to further collaborative editing. Sparkle1 ( talk) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
For the information of other editors, I am choosing to not take the bait and am not engaging with Sweet6970, as I do not believe interactions with this user are constructive due to the nature and tone of the statements they are making. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers understands how abbreviations work. Crossroads You cannot leave some in and only remove some, you also cannot leave unexplained abbreviations in quotes. The edit you made only go to show you do not understand how abbreviations are done in articles and you are more determined to use this as a battleground and are more interested in winning than actually having a clue as to what the way to use abbreviations actually is. You cant just remove some, it's all or nothing. If it is nothing you must then expand the abbreviation used in quotes. Which you clearly had no idea you needed to do, showing you have no idea, in this and are out to attack me along with others here which is something I am going to push back against. Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Since I have had no objections to my suggestions above about reactions to the appeal, I am adding a section for this. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a new article in the Law Society Gazette on 12 July 2021 which is a legal analysis of the situation after the appeal judgment. [16] I would add to the Reactions to appeal section the following summary of this article:
In an article in the Law Society Gazette in July 2021, Tess Barrett, a solicitor, commented on the appeal judgment, which she said ‘is not a permission for those who hold gender critical beliefs to misgender with impunity and nor is it a removal of existing transgender rights.’ She also said: ‘Whereas the previous judgment effectively silenced those holding gender critical views, the EAT judgment means that neither view in the transgender debate is silenced. How those beliefs are communicated is what is key and this judgment does not entitle, and should not embolden, either side on the transgender debate to harass the other due to their beliefs.’
She stated: ‘On 28 June the CGDE and CGD announced that they will not be appealing the EAT judgment on philosophical belief to the Court of Appeal. This means that gender critical beliefs’ status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary.’
Any comments? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
How should the Reactions section be formatted? I put in subsection headings to divide them by occupation, which I think is reasonable, although I'm unsure how they should be ordered to give due weight to them. An IP user reverted my changes so I wanted to discuss it here.
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 10:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
From what I can gather, per this change to Maya's main page, alongside comments on social media (both from her and others), the case has now returned to the employment tribunal. According to this Twitter post Maya concluded her evidence section today. I'm unable to find any major reliable sources covering the tribunal at this time, and only this coverage from yesterday in the Cumnock Chronicle, a local Scottish newspaper.
As such, I'm not sure we can add anything to the article at this time, with the exception of maybe checking the Woman's Hour segment for any new WP:ABOUTSELF statements. This hopefully will change pending the outcome of the tribunal, though at this stage it's unclear as to when a decision is expected nor immediately clear how much longer proceedings will continue for. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to note, earlier I fixed Template:Cite BAILII so that it supports both UKET and UKEAT cases. As such I've now gone and replaced the references that previously linked to gov.uk to the corresponding entries on BAILII. In the process I also removed a duplicate reference, though there is one remaining GOV.UK citation (cite 8 in the current list, ref name="Appeal") that I'm not yet sure how to handle. Unlike the other two case citations, this refers a specific page in the URL. I think it's OK to condense this into the BAILII cite for the EAT ruling, as the exact phrase is searchable within that document. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Sweet6970: I saw that you reverted a change I made earlier. I have two objections to that sentence. The first is that it contains repeated content from the third paragraph, which already states that the EAT found that Forstater's beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, albeit in a different phrase. Per MOS:REDUNDANCY we should avoid that.
The second is its position, chronologically it does not fit in the first paragraph of the lead. It does not make sense to refer to what happened in appeal judgement before discussing the original ruling. Per WP:AUDIENCE, we need to consider the reader and what details they will be getting from the lead. By putting that ahead of the original ruling, the reader is missing vital context as to why that ruling was important to this case, and to a lesser degree (within the context of this article) what impact it may have on similar cases in the future. Again per MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL this is something we should avoid.
If it is felt that this specific phrase is important to have as illuded to in your edit summary, and I agree that it is one of the few things that have been decided about this case, then we can include it. However it should not be in the first paragraph as the first paragraph currently stands. Either it should be in the third paragraph, so that it is placed chronologically with respect to the other relevant content from the appeal tribunal, or an additional sentence needs to be added prior to it in the first paragraph, summarising why Forstater's case needed to go to the appeal tribunal. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Forstater appealed the initial rulingwould suffice, and could possibly even be appended into the previous point.
Firstly, the lede in this article has been stable for months, so you and others have accepted itseems to be spurious reasoning. There are several reasons the lead text might be stable, and while stability is a kind of virtue in itself, it does not at all imply that other editors (who may not even have read the text in question, or who may have held off on expressing their concerns for various reasons)
have accepted it. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
fairly obvious reason,please explain it. For instance, how does the current wording
mislead our readers? What is
the context? It is a simple statement about the current law on the subject. And I disagree that a stable version has not been accepted: this does not make sense.
This isn't suggested text, but as an example, the first source on the appeal that we actually cite in our article says in its lead section, The victory for Maya Forstater, who was also backed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, means people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs must not be sacked simply for holding them. However, they cannot express them in a way that discriminates against trans people.
That seems about right, in terms of context and balance. By contrast, the current lead of our article misleads our readers by leaving out the second thing, and also by presenting the first thing in a less nuanced way.
Newimpartial (
talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
though this does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way which discriminates against trans people' in brackets to the end of the 2nd sentence. But that’s rather different from a complete re-writing of the lede, which I understood was being proposed. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
a complete re-writing of the ledeas I thought I had been clear that my proposals were either moving the final sentence of the first paragraph to the third paragraph, or inserting one to two new sentences into the first paragraph before the final sentence. The remainder of the lead would remain as it currently is. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
otherwise…. allow one protected class under the equality act to impinge upon anotherbecause that’s not the way the law on discrimination works.
In Scottish Legal News Louise Usher said: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA [Equality Act] 2010 for trans persons.[my emphasis] and a comment made by Tess Barrett, a solicitor, in an article in the Law Society Gazette:
"This means that gender critical beliefs' status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary."[my emphasis]
the significance of the caseincludes both elements (the finding and the qualification). What I am calling OR is your unswerving belief that
The significance of this case resides in the first part of the sentence- quoting critics whose concern is about the first part does not really establish that it is
the significance of this casein the absence of the context provided by the second part. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.
This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct: see footnote 1.
On a very abstract level, I can see what Sweet is saying. On my understanding of the case, the strict legal point that the case decided was that the stated beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society. It did not strictly decide that those beliefs cannot be expressed in discriminatory ways, because that point was never in dispute. As I understand the case, Forstater is not arguing that she is entitled to discriminate.
However, while that point may be important to lawyers, I completely agree that, as a matter of substance, the qualification is important and should be mentioned. And I certainly agree that separating it off by brackets is not appropriate. So what about the following wording:
"The Employment Appeal Tribunal established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, in its judgment, the Tribunal clarified that this finding does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way that discriminates against trans people." Telanian7790 ( talk) 11:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted edits to the leading which appear to be an attempt to downplay the judgment, and portray it as a loss for Forstater. This is not supported either by the judgment itself, or by the published sources. It also appears to be a misunderstanding of UK law, and specifically, the way in which employment tribunals work. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C80E:E153:15E0:DDFB ( talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The judgment on compensation is that in total, £106,404 is awarded to Forstater. Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [19] Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
RE: this edit, the prior chronology was more accurate.
Her work contract expired in December 2018 with the expectation of renewal. After that she was technically an applicant for employment, and there was ongoing discussion about continuing her employment on a different project, her status as a visiting fellow, the investigation into her beliefs - all of which encompassed CGD's discriminatory conduct towards her, until the relationship broke down in March 2019. Void if removed ( talk) 11:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thereafter there were potential issues as to whether the Visiting Fellowship came to an end by virtue of not being renewed on 31 October 2018, or continued until Mr Ahmed told Ms Forstater that it would not be renewed on 28 February 2019, on the basis that the general expectation was that a Visiting Fellowship would be renewed for a third year. There was also a potential issue as to whether Ms Forstater had continued to work under the terms of the fourth contract into January and February 2019 because, although the expressed end date of that contract was the end of 2018, she was still completing some of the work that was necessary under it into the new year.
The Tribunal had no doubt that if the correct view was that the contract had come to an end on 31 October 2018, or 31 December 2018, or at the point when Ms Forstater ceased work under the fourth contract, that the matters complained of arose out of and were closely connected to the employment relationship.
On 15 March 2019 she presented this claim to the Employment Tribunal.
Since it got brought up... I really don't see how their opinion is notable. Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan are redlinks, there's no evidence of much substantial references to the paper that I can find, and the paper as a whole barely mentions Forstater in the first place - The quote that was being used about Forstater is literally the entirety of the commentary on Forstater in the article. Reliable source or not, it's a trivial mention by apparently non-notable people being given its own paragraph, and that's a problem. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The rights and humanity of women have historically been discounted, and attempts to silence women with threats of violence and slanderous attacks on our reputations are as old as history. Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’
some TERF journalist's propaganda" so you're not off to a flying start proving them wrong. Void if removed ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The decision generated some critical comment almost immediately. One experienced barrister in the discrimination law field – and who, it should be noted, had appeared for the intervening Equality and Human Rights Commission in Forstater – assessed that ‘It is difficult then to conclude otherwise than that the Judge got it wrong’. Tellingly, a differently constituted ET criticised the decision in no uncertain terms: > "The belief that sex and gender are ‘set at birth’ may be upsetting to certain people but if freedom of speech and the rights within articles 9 and 10 of the Convention only extended to expressions of belief that could upset no-one they would be worthless. Essentially, to find as the tribunals did in [Forstater] would amount to a declaration that it is ‘open season’ on people that hold and express the beliefs in question – that they do not deserve protection. That seemed to us to be a strange and somewhat disturbing conclusion."
But, anyway, Void if removed, you proposed trimming the sections outright. That seems like a more productive way forward than discussing a minor source that doesn't have much to say anyway. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Adam Cuerden: In your edit summary here
[20], you say ‘this is probably better handled in the appeal
’ but you have not moved the material to the appeal section. It is significant that Index on Censorship and the Equality and Human Rights Commission were given leave to intervene in the appeal, but this is not now included in the article. What are your proposals on this?
Sweet6970 (
talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I've cut a bit of Forstater's lawyer's statements. It's awkward to quote his... debunking, I guess?" of claimed misrepresentation of her when the claimed misrepresentation don't appear in the article, especially when he's characterising a witness' view as part of it, which does lean towards BLP issues. Since it's written in emotive, persuasive speech, it gives a lot of legitimacy to the interpretations it advocates for that probably goes beyond the WP:NPOV we're striving for. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)