![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Editathon article This page was created during a
WikiProject Women in Red editathon to encourage new editors and create missing articles about notable women. Please do not delete but instead offer constructive criticism as to how this article could be improved (if necessary). |
Creating this page so that Forstater has her own page in addition to the one about her case. Her work, publications and media coverage ensure that she is notable. Melissa Highton ( talk) 18:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't have any secondary sources about Sex Matters, that I know of. I don't see any evidence that it is a formal charity, although its website says it's a "Sex Matters is a Company Registered by Guarantee. Company Number 12974690". I'd suggest changing the text to avoid use of the word charity. AndyGordon ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Re "Following this letter a number of high profile public institutions including the EHRC, began to with draw from membership of the scheme", this implies causality, that the letter caused EHRC to withdraw, but where is the evidence? None of those three references mention the letter. Moreover, EHRC say they made the decision in March and the letter appeared in May. I would propose we delete this sentence, and move the references to the Stonewall page. AndyGordon ( talk) 11:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The ref I have to correspondence to and from EHRC and Sex Matters is the Daily Mail so may not be quality. Melissa Highton ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Baroness Falkner's comments are related to Forstaters freedom of speech, not to EHRC's withdrawal from the Diversity Champions Scheme, so it might be good to separate these sentences again. Melissa Highton ( talk) 14:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
When this article was nominated for deletion the discussion focussed on whether there was content about Forstater which is beyond her role in the court case. Some votes were cast but no consensus was achieved. I think this article should focus on content wider than the court case, refer readers to the court case, and not replicate the content. Melissa Highton ( talk) 17:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I note that the talk pages about the court case discussed the rohybpnol tweet and decided not to include it because it is hate speech. I removed it from this page but it has been put back again. Melissa Highton ( talk) 18:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
see that page's history for attribution. I should have mentioned this in the edit summary. This is the copied phrase that I put into the lede: "... which established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010"
The phrase "while stating that the judgment does not permit misgendering transgender people with impunity." has recently been added to the lede. The editor states it is "included for balance", but it is not clear what exactly is being balanced here. That holding any protected belief does not mean someone is able to actively harass other individuals is a given. The EAT ruled, in reference to Forstater's case, on status of belief only, not on any actions carried out by her. By including this in the lede section of the article which is about Forstater, there is an implication that she had participated in this behaviour. I believe that this violates both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As this was a recent edition, I have reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO version until consensus is reached. 2A00:23C8:2C87:4201:2562:8B20:9B34:DD5 ( talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
qualifier? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Up until this point the question of Forstater's conduct has not been looked at in court.That is factually incorrect, Forstater's conduct was looked at in court, at the original tribunal hearing in 2019. The judge in that case made an error in law, which was appealed in 2021. The current proceedings are a re-analysis of Forstater's conduct in light of the higher court correcting the error in law. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs will be heard in March 2022.The second proposed lead explicitly says
The tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal. Both are incorrect. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
As you say, the employment tribunal is currently being heard. Up until this point the question of Forstater's conduct has not been looked at in court.This is incorrect. A timeline of all the court actions taken in the case so far can be found at Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe, however in short. Forstater's conduct has been assessed in court, at the original hearing in November 2019. The judge at that time, in the judgement stated that
her view was "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" and therefore not afforded protection under the Equality Act.Forstater then appealed the part of the judgement that stated gender critical views are not afforded protection under the Equality Act, as Forstater and her legal team felt that the judge in the initial hearing erred in law. That case was heard in June 2021, and the judgement for it said plainly that while the belief was afforded protection under the act, manifestations and actions from that belief were not. What is currently being heard is a re-do of the original tribunal, under the findings of the subsequent appeal.
manifestations and actions from that beliefare not protected. I have not seen that anywhere in the appeal judgment. Manifestations of belief must, in principle, be protected, otherwise the ‘protection’ for any belief is meaningless. But not all manifestations are automatically protected. As the judgment says
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 [Equality Act].This means (roughly) that you cannot use your beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against someone, or to harass them.
manifestations and actions from that belief are not protectedstems from legal analysis of both the original employment tribunal ruling in 2019 [1] [2] and the appeal in 2021. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Manifestations of belief must, in principle, be protected, otherwise the ‘protection’ for any belief is meaningless.The difficulty with this is, as you say, balancing protections. Manifestations of a belief cannot impinge upon the protected characteristics of another protected group. For example, religion is a protected belief, however some religions are objectively sexist in their practices. While an employee is allowed practice their religion in their personal life, they are not allowed to use their religion in their professional life to discriminate against against another.
It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs by any objective standardnonetheless some analysis was done when contrasting those beliefs to the criteria laid out in Grainger plc v Nicholson. Paragraph 85of the appeal judgement supports this when it says
The Tribunal appears here to be straying into an evaluation of the Claimant’s belief(emphasis mine). By doing so, this was part of the error in law that the original tribunal made in this case.
The tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal. It did (appeal para 82), though in doing so it made an error in law which was pointed out in appeal paragraphs 85-89. I am fine with the later part of that sentence
and a full merits hearing on the claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefsas that is accurately describing what is occurring presently, however we need to be significantly more precise with the first part of the sentence. An incorrect analysis of Forstater's beliefs is still an analysis of her beliefs. Though I realise my own objection above, made at 5am, could have been more clear on this point. So for that I apologise. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I support this content. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I support this proposal. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The [Employment] Tribunal appears here to be straying into an evaluation of the Claimant’s belief. In order for paragraph 82 to contextually make sense, an analysis of Forstater's beliefs must have been undertaken (or perceived to have been undertaken) by the original tribunal. What the appeal tribunal made clear was that any such analysis by the original judge was in error at that stage, as at that hearing stage an analysis of the claimant's beliefs should not have been undertaken. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The Tribunalhe is specifically referring the original tribunal and not the appeal tribunal. Where the appeal judgement states
It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs, it means that it was not the task of the original tribunal under Judge Tayler to evaluate the claimant's beliefs. However Judge Taylor did perform an analysis of some of the claimant's beliefs, hence why in paragraph 90 of his ruling he stated
I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.Emphasis mine. In order to make that determination, Judge Tayler had to assess some of Forstater's beliefs. This was part of the error in law made in the original ruling. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Sweet6970 and The Gnome: Any chance we could discuss this set of changes on the talk page please and not in edit summaries? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Reasoning behind recent edit:
1. Replacing pronoun with name: This article is about a person known for her involvement in issues concerning transgender people. However, replacing the pronoun "she" in a few sentences with Forstater's surname is entirely irrelevant to the well known issue of pronouns in the transgender community. After all, she is not contesting the surname "she" nor has she claimed a preferred pronoun. Such edits are no more than a simple, elementary actually, editing practice through which meaning is rendered more clear, i.e. that we're talking about person A and not person B. In the interest of prose quality, we often go the opposite way, i.e. replacing surname witn pronoun. I fail to see anything controversial about those edits.
2. Replacing the verb "established": Instead of having "The case established at an Employment Appeal Tribunal that [etc]", I had instead " The case was tried at an Employment Appeal Tribunal whose judgment stated that [etc]". The reason is that "established" denotes something final and unchangeable, but the case, though it has been decided at the Appeals stage and constitutes a precedent, is not necessarily over, in terms of litigation. See, for instance, statement by Amanda Glassman, Centre for Global Development Europe CEO: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the first trial] got it right ... We’re currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers."
3. Inserting fuller description about Tweeter messaging: Instead of "In 2018, Forstater made on average 5 to 10 posts on Twitter every day", I found evidently more informative to include the rest of the judgment's relevant description, strictly per its text, and have "In 2018, Forstater, who described herself as "a researcher and writer on topics related to public policy, tax, and business, with an active social media presence", made "on average between 5 and 10 tweets a day," some of which the complaint alleged were "transphobic," something denied by Forstater." This offers the necessary balance required in posting something over from a judicial decision.
4. New tribunal: Instead of "A fresh tribunal would have to be convened in order to determine whether it was this belief that was the reason for the non-renewal of her contract," I find preferable for reasons of description completeness a verbatim quote from The Herald article, i.e. "Ms Forstater's case will now be remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to determine if her dismissal was 'because of or related to' her protected belief."
5. Getting rid of close-to-non-NPOV prose: Instead of "She won this appeal because the Appeal Tribunal concluded (unlike the original tribunal) that [etc]", which smells of regret, it's obviously far more simple and neutral to have the anodyne "The Appeal Tribunal reversed the original decision and awarded the case to Forstater with the following opinion [etc]".
6. Adding wikilinks: I thought having public policy, tax, business, biology, pluralist would be routinely helpul but these edits too were defenestrated. How about making specific reverts, folks? How about instead of lazy, wholesale reverts, one puts in an effort equivalent to the initial editor's?
7.Style: My rendering the title of a legal case ( Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) in italics was rejected despite MOS:ITALICTITLE. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
essentially the sameand they are not just
replacing “she” with Forstater.
smell of regret. It is clarifying the situation. The EAT did not award the case to Forstater. And it did not give an opinion, it gave a judgment.
In 2019 Forstater's consulting contract for CGD was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men during online discourse regarding potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which led to concerns being raised by staff at CGD. Forstater challenged the non-renewal of her contract at the Central London Employment Tribunal. In December 2019, a hearing was held to establish whether Forstater's beliefs qualified as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. Judge Tayler ruled that they did not, stating that her 'gender critical' views were "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others".
Forstater appealed against the judgment, and this was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2021. Judgment was reserved with the decision in her favour published on 10 June 2021. As with the original hearing, the appeal was on the narrow issue of whether her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, therefore amounting to a protected belief. The judgment found that Forstater's gender-critical beliefs were protected, meeting the final requirement in Grainger plc v Nicholson, specifically that they were "worthy of respect in a democratic society". A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs was heard in March 2022 with a decision expected in May.
Does anyone else have any comments on the proposed replacement of the wording of the ‘Legal case’ section with a shortened version of the lead in the article on the legal case: Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
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.in the new wording for this article. That would be fine with me. It would go after “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Is that what you want? Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
In 2019 Forstater's consulting contract for CGD was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men during online discourse regarding potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which led to concerns being raised by staff at CGD. Forstater challenged the non-renewal of her contract at the Central London Employment Tribunal. In December 2019, a hearing was held to establish whether Forstater's beliefs qualified as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. Judge Tayler ruled that they did not, stating that her 'gender critical' views were "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others".
Forstater appealed against the judgment, and this was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2021. Judgment was reserved with the decision in her favour published on 10 June 2021. As with the original hearing, the appeal was on the narrow issue of whether her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, therefore amounting to a protected belief. The judgment found that Forstater's gender-critical beliefs were protected, meeting the final requirement in Grainger plc v Nicholson, specifically that they were "worthy of respect in a democratic society". 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. A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs was heard in March 2022 with a decision expected in May.
@ The Gnome: I have twice told you to take your proposed changes to the Talk page. Since I have reverted you, it is for you to justify your changes on this Talk page. Instead of following normal Wikipedia procedure, you have chosen to start an edit war.
You have not justified your edits.
You should provide justification for each of your edits. You should know this. You should have done each different change in a separate edit, with a specific justification for each change. You should know this.
Why have you chosen to breach normal Wikipedia processes? Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
essentially the sameand they are not just
replacing “she” with Forstater.
Undid revision 1095136878 by Sweet6970 (talk) undoing entirely unjustified revert of edit that's wholly supported by the cited sources; verbatim quotes, when necessary as they are here, are to be always preferred over personal verbiage; the revert by User:Sweet6970 even re-introduces dead links in the article undothank Tags:
Undid revision 1095138148 by Sweet6970 (talk) you seem keen User:Sweet6970 to engage in edit warring; your revert offers no justification whatsoever for these simple changes in language, most of them concerning replacement of non-cited text with verbatim cited text from sources; it all smacks of senseless obstructionism; it's on you to contest the obvious
Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question re: Maya Forstater Crossroads -talk- 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Maya Forstater is only notable because of her anti-transgender activism. This article is filled with unnecessary quotes and leading sentences that are just gender-critical talking points, along with no criticism or fact-checking for those statements. JakeFromGeico ( talk) 18:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The prefix, 'trans' is used in the article absent of any qualifying noun. E.g. Transubstantiation, trans-continental, trans-atlantic, trans-sexual, transvestite.
The intended full word should be used instead of a non-specific prefix which is unclear in its intended meaning. ( talk)
@ Snokalok: You should read MOS:GNDERID. It applies to gender. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
due to her belief that the doctor’s female patients may not have been able to consent to being examined by a male transgender doctor
due to her belief that the doctor’s female patients may not have been able to consent to being examined by a transgender doctor
NHS policy is that patients can choose to see a male or female GP
"intimately examining female patients without their consent"
It came after the former GP, who transitioned from male to female, wrote in a blog post about being permitted by patients to perform “more intimate examinations that they did not let me to do when I was a male GP”
Kamaruddin had written elsewhere: "I had a fear that my patients would treat me differently as they might not agree with my new identity due to prejudice and ignorance." In her blog post in 2020 Forstater had questioned whether Kamaruddin’s patients were "really empowered" to say no to being intimately examined, if this view was seen as "prejudiced and ignorant".
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Editathon article This page was created during a
WikiProject Women in Red editathon to encourage new editors and create missing articles about notable women. Please do not delete but instead offer constructive criticism as to how this article could be improved (if necessary). |
Creating this page so that Forstater has her own page in addition to the one about her case. Her work, publications and media coverage ensure that she is notable. Melissa Highton ( talk) 18:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't have any secondary sources about Sex Matters, that I know of. I don't see any evidence that it is a formal charity, although its website says it's a "Sex Matters is a Company Registered by Guarantee. Company Number 12974690". I'd suggest changing the text to avoid use of the word charity. AndyGordon ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Re "Following this letter a number of high profile public institutions including the EHRC, began to with draw from membership of the scheme", this implies causality, that the letter caused EHRC to withdraw, but where is the evidence? None of those three references mention the letter. Moreover, EHRC say they made the decision in March and the letter appeared in May. I would propose we delete this sentence, and move the references to the Stonewall page. AndyGordon ( talk) 11:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The ref I have to correspondence to and from EHRC and Sex Matters is the Daily Mail so may not be quality. Melissa Highton ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Baroness Falkner's comments are related to Forstaters freedom of speech, not to EHRC's withdrawal from the Diversity Champions Scheme, so it might be good to separate these sentences again. Melissa Highton ( talk) 14:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
When this article was nominated for deletion the discussion focussed on whether there was content about Forstater which is beyond her role in the court case. Some votes were cast but no consensus was achieved. I think this article should focus on content wider than the court case, refer readers to the court case, and not replicate the content. Melissa Highton ( talk) 17:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I note that the talk pages about the court case discussed the rohybpnol tweet and decided not to include it because it is hate speech. I removed it from this page but it has been put back again. Melissa Highton ( talk) 18:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
see that page's history for attribution. I should have mentioned this in the edit summary. This is the copied phrase that I put into the lede: "... which established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010"
The phrase "while stating that the judgment does not permit misgendering transgender people with impunity." has recently been added to the lede. The editor states it is "included for balance", but it is not clear what exactly is being balanced here. That holding any protected belief does not mean someone is able to actively harass other individuals is a given. The EAT ruled, in reference to Forstater's case, on status of belief only, not on any actions carried out by her. By including this in the lede section of the article which is about Forstater, there is an implication that she had participated in this behaviour. I believe that this violates both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As this was a recent edition, I have reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO version until consensus is reached. 2A00:23C8:2C87:4201:2562:8B20:9B34:DD5 ( talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
qualifier? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Up until this point the question of Forstater's conduct has not been looked at in court.That is factually incorrect, Forstater's conduct was looked at in court, at the original tribunal hearing in 2019. The judge in that case made an error in law, which was appealed in 2021. The current proceedings are a re-analysis of Forstater's conduct in light of the higher court correcting the error in law. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs will be heard in March 2022.The second proposed lead explicitly says
The tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal. Both are incorrect. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
As you say, the employment tribunal is currently being heard. Up until this point the question of Forstater's conduct has not been looked at in court.This is incorrect. A timeline of all the court actions taken in the case so far can be found at Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe, however in short. Forstater's conduct has been assessed in court, at the original hearing in November 2019. The judge at that time, in the judgement stated that
her view was "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" and therefore not afforded protection under the Equality Act.Forstater then appealed the part of the judgement that stated gender critical views are not afforded protection under the Equality Act, as Forstater and her legal team felt that the judge in the initial hearing erred in law. That case was heard in June 2021, and the judgement for it said plainly that while the belief was afforded protection under the act, manifestations and actions from that belief were not. What is currently being heard is a re-do of the original tribunal, under the findings of the subsequent appeal.
manifestations and actions from that beliefare not protected. I have not seen that anywhere in the appeal judgment. Manifestations of belief must, in principle, be protected, otherwise the ‘protection’ for any belief is meaningless. But not all manifestations are automatically protected. As the judgment says
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 [Equality Act].This means (roughly) that you cannot use your beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against someone, or to harass them.
manifestations and actions from that belief are not protectedstems from legal analysis of both the original employment tribunal ruling in 2019 [1] [2] and the appeal in 2021. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Manifestations of belief must, in principle, be protected, otherwise the ‘protection’ for any belief is meaningless.The difficulty with this is, as you say, balancing protections. Manifestations of a belief cannot impinge upon the protected characteristics of another protected group. For example, religion is a protected belief, however some religions are objectively sexist in their practices. While an employee is allowed practice their religion in their personal life, they are not allowed to use their religion in their professional life to discriminate against against another.
It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs by any objective standardnonetheless some analysis was done when contrasting those beliefs to the criteria laid out in Grainger plc v Nicholson. Paragraph 85of the appeal judgement supports this when it says
The Tribunal appears here to be straying into an evaluation of the Claimant’s belief(emphasis mine). By doing so, this was part of the error in law that the original tribunal made in this case.
The tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal. It did (appeal para 82), though in doing so it made an error in law which was pointed out in appeal paragraphs 85-89. I am fine with the later part of that sentence
and a full merits hearing on the claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefsas that is accurately describing what is occurring presently, however we need to be significantly more precise with the first part of the sentence. An incorrect analysis of Forstater's beliefs is still an analysis of her beliefs. Though I realise my own objection above, made at 5am, could have been more clear on this point. So for that I apologise. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I support this content. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I support this proposal. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The [Employment] Tribunal appears here to be straying into an evaluation of the Claimant’s belief. In order for paragraph 82 to contextually make sense, an analysis of Forstater's beliefs must have been undertaken (or perceived to have been undertaken) by the original tribunal. What the appeal tribunal made clear was that any such analysis by the original judge was in error at that stage, as at that hearing stage an analysis of the claimant's beliefs should not have been undertaken. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The Tribunalhe is specifically referring the original tribunal and not the appeal tribunal. Where the appeal judgement states
It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs, it means that it was not the task of the original tribunal under Judge Tayler to evaluate the claimant's beliefs. However Judge Taylor did perform an analysis of some of the claimant's beliefs, hence why in paragraph 90 of his ruling he stated
I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.Emphasis mine. In order to make that determination, Judge Tayler had to assess some of Forstater's beliefs. This was part of the error in law made in the original ruling. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Sweet6970 and The Gnome: Any chance we could discuss this set of changes on the talk page please and not in edit summaries? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Reasoning behind recent edit:
1. Replacing pronoun with name: This article is about a person known for her involvement in issues concerning transgender people. However, replacing the pronoun "she" in a few sentences with Forstater's surname is entirely irrelevant to the well known issue of pronouns in the transgender community. After all, she is not contesting the surname "she" nor has she claimed a preferred pronoun. Such edits are no more than a simple, elementary actually, editing practice through which meaning is rendered more clear, i.e. that we're talking about person A and not person B. In the interest of prose quality, we often go the opposite way, i.e. replacing surname witn pronoun. I fail to see anything controversial about those edits.
2. Replacing the verb "established": Instead of having "The case established at an Employment Appeal Tribunal that [etc]", I had instead " The case was tried at an Employment Appeal Tribunal whose judgment stated that [etc]". The reason is that "established" denotes something final and unchangeable, but the case, though it has been decided at the Appeals stage and constitutes a precedent, is not necessarily over, in terms of litigation. See, for instance, statement by Amanda Glassman, Centre for Global Development Europe CEO: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the first trial] got it right ... We’re currently considering the various paths forward with our lawyers."
3. Inserting fuller description about Tweeter messaging: Instead of "In 2018, Forstater made on average 5 to 10 posts on Twitter every day", I found evidently more informative to include the rest of the judgment's relevant description, strictly per its text, and have "In 2018, Forstater, who described herself as "a researcher and writer on topics related to public policy, tax, and business, with an active social media presence", made "on average between 5 and 10 tweets a day," some of which the complaint alleged were "transphobic," something denied by Forstater." This offers the necessary balance required in posting something over from a judicial decision.
4. New tribunal: Instead of "A fresh tribunal would have to be convened in order to determine whether it was this belief that was the reason for the non-renewal of her contract," I find preferable for reasons of description completeness a verbatim quote from The Herald article, i.e. "Ms Forstater's case will now be remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to determine if her dismissal was 'because of or related to' her protected belief."
5. Getting rid of close-to-non-NPOV prose: Instead of "She won this appeal because the Appeal Tribunal concluded (unlike the original tribunal) that [etc]", which smells of regret, it's obviously far more simple and neutral to have the anodyne "The Appeal Tribunal reversed the original decision and awarded the case to Forstater with the following opinion [etc]".
6. Adding wikilinks: I thought having public policy, tax, business, biology, pluralist would be routinely helpul but these edits too were defenestrated. How about making specific reverts, folks? How about instead of lazy, wholesale reverts, one puts in an effort equivalent to the initial editor's?
7.Style: My rendering the title of a legal case ( Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) in italics was rejected despite MOS:ITALICTITLE. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
essentially the sameand they are not just
replacing “she” with Forstater.
smell of regret. It is clarifying the situation. The EAT did not award the case to Forstater. And it did not give an opinion, it gave a judgment.
In 2019 Forstater's consulting contract for CGD was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men during online discourse regarding potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which led to concerns being raised by staff at CGD. Forstater challenged the non-renewal of her contract at the Central London Employment Tribunal. In December 2019, a hearing was held to establish whether Forstater's beliefs qualified as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. Judge Tayler ruled that they did not, stating that her 'gender critical' views were "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others".
Forstater appealed against the judgment, and this was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2021. Judgment was reserved with the decision in her favour published on 10 June 2021. As with the original hearing, the appeal was on the narrow issue of whether her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, therefore amounting to a protected belief. The judgment found that Forstater's gender-critical beliefs were protected, meeting the final requirement in Grainger plc v Nicholson, specifically that they were "worthy of respect in a democratic society". A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs was heard in March 2022 with a decision expected in May.
Does anyone else have any comments on the proposed replacement of the wording of the ‘Legal case’ section with a shortened version of the lead in the article on the legal case: Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe? Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
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.in the new wording for this article. That would be fine with me. It would go after “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Is that what you want? Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
In 2019 Forstater's consulting contract for CGD was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men during online discourse regarding potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which led to concerns being raised by staff at CGD. Forstater challenged the non-renewal of her contract at the Central London Employment Tribunal. In December 2019, a hearing was held to establish whether Forstater's beliefs qualified as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. Judge Tayler ruled that they did not, stating that her 'gender critical' views were "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others".
Forstater appealed against the judgment, and this was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2021. Judgment was reserved with the decision in her favour published on 10 June 2021. As with the original hearing, the appeal was on the narrow issue of whether her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, therefore amounting to a protected belief. The judgment found that Forstater's gender-critical beliefs were protected, meeting the final requirement in Grainger plc v Nicholson, specifically that they were "worthy of respect in a democratic society". 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. A full merits hearing on Forstater's claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs was heard in March 2022 with a decision expected in May.
@ The Gnome: I have twice told you to take your proposed changes to the Talk page. Since I have reverted you, it is for you to justify your changes on this Talk page. Instead of following normal Wikipedia procedure, you have chosen to start an edit war.
You have not justified your edits.
You should provide justification for each of your edits. You should know this. You should have done each different change in a separate edit, with a specific justification for each change. You should know this.
Why have you chosen to breach normal Wikipedia processes? Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
essentially the sameand they are not just
replacing “she” with Forstater.
Undid revision 1095136878 by Sweet6970 (talk) undoing entirely unjustified revert of edit that's wholly supported by the cited sources; verbatim quotes, when necessary as they are here, are to be always preferred over personal verbiage; the revert by User:Sweet6970 even re-introduces dead links in the article undothank Tags:
Undid revision 1095138148 by Sweet6970 (talk) you seem keen User:Sweet6970 to engage in edit warring; your revert offers no justification whatsoever for these simple changes in language, most of them concerning replacement of non-cited text with verbatim cited text from sources; it all smacks of senseless obstructionism; it's on you to contest the obvious
Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question re: Maya Forstater Crossroads -talk- 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Maya Forstater is only notable because of her anti-transgender activism. This article is filled with unnecessary quotes and leading sentences that are just gender-critical talking points, along with no criticism or fact-checking for those statements. JakeFromGeico ( talk) 18:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The prefix, 'trans' is used in the article absent of any qualifying noun. E.g. Transubstantiation, trans-continental, trans-atlantic, trans-sexual, transvestite.
The intended full word should be used instead of a non-specific prefix which is unclear in its intended meaning. ( talk)
@ Snokalok: You should read MOS:GNDERID. It applies to gender. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
due to her belief that the doctor’s female patients may not have been able to consent to being examined by a male transgender doctor
due to her belief that the doctor’s female patients may not have been able to consent to being examined by a transgender doctor
NHS policy is that patients can choose to see a male or female GP
"intimately examining female patients without their consent"
It came after the former GP, who transitioned from male to female, wrote in a blog post about being permitted by patients to perform “more intimate examinations that they did not let me to do when I was a male GP”
Kamaruddin had written elsewhere: "I had a fear that my patients would treat me differently as they might not agree with my new identity due to prejudice and ignorance." In her blog post in 2020 Forstater had questioned whether Kamaruddin’s patients were "really empowered" to say no to being intimately examined, if this view was seen as "prejudiced and ignorant".