Talk:Maya Forstater

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)

Sex Matters

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)

The current explanation of the organisation, that it "works to establish that sex matters in rules, laws, policies, language and culture" (in WP's voice) is tautologous and gives the reader no indication of what the organisation does.

In general, it is striking that this article mentions the word 'transgender' only once, especially when most of the sources that it draws on use the term in their headline. I'm not convinced that this is NPOV. Furius (talk) 18:10, 25 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)

Article focus

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)

hate speech

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)

copied content from Maya_Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development

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"

Lede

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)

I agree with the comment above. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The material added for balance was then edited by Crossroads and has stood for a week - this is in fact the status quo. Without the qualifiers included in the judgement and the coverage of the judgment, the reader might conclude that the Equity Act protects the freedom of gender critical belief against the right of Trans people not to be misgendered, but it does not do so. There is no implication either in my version or Crossroads' version of this text that the BLP subject actually misgendered anyone - thr facts of what happened in her workplace is still subject to proceedings, as far as I know, so certainly this article should not say or imply anything one way or another.

In fact, this sentence of the lead is about the employment tribunal case, not the BLP subject as such, and so it should offer the reader a balanced view of the decision. Mentioning the principle of protection for gender critical speech without mentioning the limits of application of that principle might lead the reader to conclude, erroneously, that the case had been l resolved in favor of the article's subject, which has not in fact happened. Because the decision set out - and also limited - the grounds on which the case can proceed, the lead section should reflect this. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how the briefer version of the lede could lead to a reader concluding something which isn’t stated in the lead. There is plenty of detail in the article about the legal case, for anyone who is interested. As regards the status quo – I was considering deleting the wording in dispute, but, as you know, I try to avoid edit wars. By the way, the case is currently being heard. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)  

Acccording both to the decision itself and the RS on the decision, it established that gender critical belief is protected in the Equality Act but that that protection does not extend to misgending people. Boiling that down as though the first part of this were the significant part and the second part were insignificant seems to me (and the RS) to be a distortion of the judgement itself. I imagine that the lead will need to change as a result of the actual dismissal case, of course, but both versions of the lead under discussion refer here only to the judgement (in fact the appeal judgement) and neither discusses the BLP subject herself. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the dismissal case is still ongoing, with Maya presenting her evidence & witness statement last week, and CGD presenting theirs this week, I'm not sure that we need to make any changes to the lead at present. That said, from memory (don't have the links to hand but can search for them later if required) it was stated in analyses of the appeal that while gender critical belief is protected, manifestations and acting upon that belief is not (eg a GC person can believe a trans person is not the gender they say they are, but they can't discriminate based on that belief). As such any reference to it here will need to make that distinction clear. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That argument could apply to the article about the actual case, where I note it is not included in the lede at present. However, this is a BLP. The subject of the article is Forstater, not the case. Right now, there is a clear implication in the lede that the subject of the article was involved in the behaviour described. 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. The lede violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It doesn't even state that her case has not actually been decided on yet. If editors insist the line should remain, then a further qualifier should also be added that states that no judgement has been decided with regard to any behaviour of the subject. 2A00:23C8:2C87:4201:D572:6873:266D:556C (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no implication in the current version that Forstater engaged in misgendering of trans people. The shorter version in the lead equally could be said to imply that Forrester was dismissed for her "gender critical" beliefs, which is equally unproven. Newimpartial (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

to the IP: Do you have a proposed wording for a qualifier? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My preferred wording would be borrowed from the article on the case itself, which would read as: "Maya Forstater (born 3 July 1973) is a British business and international development researcher known for being the claimant in the Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development legal case, which established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. 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." Obviously that omits the line in question. My personal feeling is clearly that adding it is unnecessary for the lede. However, if other editors feel it should be included, I would suggest: "Maya Forstater (born 3 July 1973) is a British business and international development researcher known for being the claimant in the Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development legal case. The case established at an Employment Appeal Tribunal that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010, while stating that the judgment does not permit misgendering transgender people with impunity. The tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal, and a full merits hearing on the claim that she lost her employment as a result of these beliefs will be heard in March 2022." 2A00:23C8:2C87:4201:D:6265:CB0F:F7EF (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second proposed version with added material. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing these draft wordings. I prefer the first, but I would accept the second. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Per my comment below, I do not believe either of the two proposed leads is accurate. The merits of Forstater's case was heard in 2019, however the judge at the time was found to have erred in law. The current case is a re-do of the case in merits, subject to the guidance afforded by the appeal in law. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not clear on how your comment below contradicts the IP's proposal here. I support that proposal and, for the record, was never supportive of the contentious phrase being added to the lead, but thought that disputing it would take more time than I had. Maybe I should have tried a reversion anyway or at least noted in the edit summary where I made it less inaccurate that I preferred removal. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor said 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)

Okay, but it looks to me like the proposed text doesn't suffer from this issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The first proposed lead implies that Forstater's conduct has not been looked at in court by begging the question when it says 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)

I'm pretty sure the second one means the appeal tribunal, since that's the one mentioned in the preceding sentence. That and the other matter could be clarified I suppose. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 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.

As such, I do not believe the lead as mentioned by the IP editor is a violation of BLP and NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know why you say that manifestations and actions from that belief are 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.

And I don’t understand your objection to the IP’s drafts. The substantive case was not heard in the original tribunal, because the judgment was that the belief was not protected, therefore the case could not succeed. So Ms Forstater’s conduct was not examined in detail.

But in any event, there seems to be a majority for at least one of the IP’s drafts.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase manifestations and actions from that belief are not protected stems from legal analysis of both the original employment tribunal ruling in 2019 and the appeal in 2021.

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.

In the case of Forstater, the original tribunal found that her beliefs were absolutist in nature and as a result conflicted with the rights and protected characteristics of others. In order to make that determination, some analysis, however brief, must have been undertaken on the nature of Forstater's actions (ie, the manifestations of her beliefs). While the appeal judgement does state, as the IP editor has linked below, in paragraph 82 that It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs by any objective standard nonetheless 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.

In the first of IP's drafts, my objection is what I sated previously; that it implies that Forstater's conduct has not been evaluated in any manner through begging the question. In the second of IP's drafts, my objection is that I disagree with the phrase 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 beliefs as 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)

What if that bit in the second proposal reads "The appeal tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of Forstater's dismissal"? I'm pretty sure that's what it meant anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be more accurate as to the nature of what was decided at the appeal and I could support that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 20 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)

Separating off for clarity, but I feel necessary to point out that Sideswipe9th is incorrect. The first hearing was a preliminary hearing only, to establish whether the belief qualified as a protected philosophical belief, and whether Forstater's employment status made her eligible for tribunal. This is clearly laid out in the section 5 of the judgement [[1]. The appeal judgement even states "It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs by any objective standard. Instead, it was to assess that belief on its own terms."[2] Both judgements in fact accept Forstater's evidence that she would normally respect pronouns in social/work situations, and that the only instance of her doing otherwise (calling a non-binary person he instead of they) had been accidental. 2A00:23C8:2C87:4201:65BE:57EF:CEC2:EB1C (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've responded to this in my reply above, however I'd like to draw your attention again to paragraphs 85 to 89 of the appeal, which make it clear that part of the error in law of the original ruling was that 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)

Just to clarify meaning, beginning in paragraph 80 of the appeal judgement, where Justice Choudhury is referring to The Tribunal he 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

June 2022 article changes.

@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)

I appreciate your concern. But as I said in my edit summaries, the changes should be discussed on the Talk page. It is The Gnome who has refused to do this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Could I please be informed first about the procedure of editing this particular article. I'm not aware of any need to have discussion on the talk page of an article before editing it, especially when the edits are, as I contest were mine, based on verbatim quotes from sources and not "controversial". Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contentious article. You have changed the lead without discussion. And your edits are not verbatim quotes, they have changed the meaning of the article so that it is now incorrect. See below. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: WP:BOLD editing is encouraged. You do not own this article and any editor can make changes to it, at any time, if they feel that it improves it.

@The Gnome: While bold editing is encouraged, if someone reverts it then discussing it is always the next step. Whether you follow WP:BRD, WP:BRB, or WP:Bold-refine, once a challenge has been made even if it seems incorrect to you, the correct response is to always open a dialogue with the editor or editors who are opposing the changes. Edit warring is never the correct response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• To Sideswipe - I have never claimed to OWN this article. Any editor who wishes to make constructive edits is welcome to do so. But when an edit is challenged, particularly one which changes a long-standing wording, this should be discussed on the Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Reverts are not prohibited in toto, Sideswipe9th. They're allowed in some specific cases. Here, it did not seem appropriate to open a discussion about everything, including the trivial matters that were rejected by Sweet6970 wholesale, e.g.dead links, etc. Sweet6970 reverted everything in one go and then placed the onus of justifying all the edits on me, summarizing their edit with generalities ("undo wholesale changes some of which make this article incorrect") that are by their nature extremely difficult to address and without specifying what exactly was their point of disagreement. Your point, in any case, is taken. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 27 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)

• Your edits are not essentially the same and they are not just replacing “she” with Forstater.

You have changed the lead to say that the case was ‘tried’ by the EAT. This is completely wrong. The EAT did not try the case. The EAT heard an appeal on a point of law. The actual case was heard by the second Employment Tribunal. If you don’t understand this, then I recommend that you leave this article alone.

You have also changed ‘established’ to ‘whose judgment stated’. This loses the meaning of the previous wording – this case is important because it has established a precedent. (And the ‘also’ does not make sense because of this.)

Your later changes are also completely wrong. The EAT did not ‘award the case to Forstater’. It gave judgment in her favour on the point of law at issue in the appeal. Forstater has not yet been ‘awarded the case’. The actual case was heard by an employment tribunal, and the judgment is still awaited. It is possible that she may lose the actual case. But if she loses, the precedent established by the appeal will still stand.

Your edits have made a nonsense of the information in this article about the legal case. Some of your other, minor, edits, could probably stand. If you had done the edits separately for each section, it would not have been necessary to revert the whole of your edit.

You should self- revert, and then redo the edits which do not make any change to the information on the legal case.

I await a reply to my points.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Further comments:

2. Replacing the verb "established"

The precedent is ‘established’ because it is permanent.

Your comment about Amanda Glassman shows that you do not understand the situation on this case – there has been a second tribunal, and Ms Glassman’s comment is now irrelevant.

4. New tribunal

Your quote from the Herald is now wrong, because the new tribunal has taken place.

5. Getting rid of close-to-non-NPOV prose:

The wording does not 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.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Developments in time do not render previous information "wrong." They simply oblige us to keep the information updated. (The reference to Amanda Glassman's statement of intent was offered as one indication of the case not having being decided finally yet, of the legal resorts not having being yet exhausted. Nothing more. Whether or not there will be further litigation is not for us to say.)

The smell of regret emanates from the parenthesis. The previous version was "She won this appeal because the Appeal Tribunal concluded (unlike the original tribunal) that [etc]". Why is the clarification "unlike the original tribunal" needed? It is not. "Precedent" is established in courts; as, if, and when the case goes up the superior levels, the decision in the highest one determines the precedent. The word "established" seemed loaded with unnecessary weight in favor of Forstater's claim, whereas the wording "The case was tried at an Employment Appeal Tribunal whose judgment stated that [etc]" seems evidently preferable. My term "opinion" is indeed inaccurate and could mislead, so it should be replaced with "reasoning," whose meaning was the intent of the use of "opinion," i.e. correct is "The Appeal Tribunal reversed the original decision and awarded the case to Forstater with the following reasoning [etc]."

Wins, awards, etc: I guess we should back up a bit and review what we're talking about. In England, Scotland, and Wales, the Employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal are both institutions with, importantly, statutory jurisdiction, which are empowered to hear and decide upon disputes between employers and employees. The tribunals issue legally binding rulings. A party resorting to an employment tribunal does not forfeit its right to pursue other avenues of litigation. Nothing in what I edited contradicts these facts, while the evident improvements in the events' description improve accuracy.

Glad to see, at least, the Wikilinks and the italics no longer contested. -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting input from WP:LAW Sweet6970 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Addressing the points in order.

1. Replacing pronoun with name: I don't see much of an issue here. In some places like the Career section, it does improve clarity of text, though you in the second sentence you didn't need to replace all instances of she with Forstater, one would have sufficed.
2. Replacing the verb "established": I don't agree with this one. For better or worse, the appeal tribunal did establish that gender critical views are considered a protected belief as a point of law. That protection has applied to or featured in cases other than the one Forstater brought since it was issued, and additionally formed part of her full merits hearing back in March.
3. Inserting fuller description about Tweeter messaging: That's an improvement and is relevant as her role as a policy researcher was part of the full merits hearing in March.
4. New tribunal: I agree that the old version was poorly phrased, especially in light of the full hearing in March. That said, given that there is a main Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development article, I'm not entirely convinced that the rather substantial amount of information in this article is actually due, as it is far more relevant to that other article. I'd suggest that the Legal Case section be re-written entirely in summary style, with the content here surmising the broad strokes.
5. Getting rid of close-to-non-NPOV prose: Agreed this is a borderline NPOV issue. And agreed that the replacement text is an improvement. Not sure if the full quote is due for inclusion here though, per the summary style issues I've mentioned above.
6. Adding wikilinks: I'm in two minds over this one. In general wikilinks are fine, as long as you're aware of MOS:OVERLINK. I'm not sure if we need to link biology, tax, and business however as those are pretty common terms. Public policy and the politically philosophical pluralism are good though.
7. Style: Italicising it is fine.

Think that covers everything I have to say about the edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• To Sideswipe: Thank you for your input, and for reading this messy discussion. You are suggesting that the inf on the legal case should be rewritten in a summary style, since there is the separate article on the case. This may be a good idea. Do you have a suggested draft for the summary wording?Sweet6970 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

A thought for the possible summary - how about the lead from the article on the legal case? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm kinda lazy when it comes to writing summary style sections. I think taking the lead of the main article, copying across any citations that are necessary, ensuring the wikilinks are consistent with what we have here, and then adjusting the wording slightly would probably serve us well. Something like this seems like an OK starting point:

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.

It omits the first paragraph of the other article's lead because it's kinda hard to work that into this article, in a way that makes chronological sense. While making the EAT ruling prominent there is warranted, as we've discussed previously at that article, it's less so here because this article is about Forstater herself, and not the case. We still mention the finding in the second paragraph however as it is still important information, but we should keep this chronological as this article is a biography. By that I mean the order of events; Forstater's contract was not renewed, Forstater brought a case, case found against her, she appealed, appeal found for her, case then proceeded to a full merits hearing.

As an aside, given that it's now June we should maybe look to see about updating the last sentence, both here and there, as either we missed that decision or it has been delayed. But that's probably a discussion for the other article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy with Sideswipe's proposed wording. Regarding the decision being expected in May: I don't think we've missed it. I keep a look out for it, and I expect that there will be considerable comment when it is published. I don't know of any reason for the delay - except that there are currently major backlogs in the legal system. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you admonished me for not being up to date with developments in the case ("there has been a second tribunal"), yet you now concede that there are no news yet about a May or June tribunal date. Do I have this right? -The Gnome (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not that there's been no news about a May or June tribunal date. The full merits hearing was concluded in March, what we're waiting for currently is the judgement of that hearing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sideswipe9th, as far as I'm concerned, your input is absolutely on the right track. I agree with all your points #1-7, except for #2, on which I believe we can defer a decision until a legal expert weighs in with the appropriate supporting evidence. Seeing as you are bringing in the necessary somber viewpoint on the contested edits, I'll maybe take my leave from the page and leave you to it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

I would be fine with that, so long as the replacement text reflects the WP:BALANCE arrived at in this discussion at the other article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The proposed replacement wording is as set out in Sideswipe’s edit of 18:23 27 June 2022 above [3] This is a slightly shortened version of the current lead of Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe. Do you agree with this? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I’m wondering whether you mean that you want to include 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)  

So that would make it read:

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.

• Looks good to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and yes. (Yes, that's what I meant and yes, the proposed text looks good.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool! As there seems to be consensus for this, I'll get that text installed shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

New text installed. I've also just completed a basic source clean-up, and added archives to all sources that weren't already archived. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I briefly interrupt my absence to offer the two cents' worth of my agreement to the changes. Take care, all. And onwards. -The Gnome (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Gnome’s edits 26/06/22

@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)

• @Sweet6970: do you mind if we merge the two sections here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is better if they are kept separate. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You think it is better for me to keep two discussions about the same thing, i.e. my attempted edits, going under two separate sections? By what kind of rules, policies, or logic would this be "better"? -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still catching up here, but I really don't see why these two sections can't be merged, as they're both covering the same set of edits and reverts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Before all else, please justify the reason for having each and every edit done separately. When a bunch of edits are essentially the same, e.g. replacing "she" with "Forstater" or vice versa, what exactly is the purpose being served by having four separate edits instead of one? -The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are not essentially the same and they are not just replacing “she” with Forstater.

You have changed the lead to say that the case was ‘tried’ by the EAT. This is completely wrong. The EAT did not try the case. The EAT heard an appeal on a point of law. The actual case was heard by the second Employment Tribunal. If you don’t understand this, then I recommend that you leave this article alone.

You have also changed ‘established’ to ‘whose judgment stated’. This loses the meaning of the previous wording – this case is important because it has established a precedent. (And the ‘also’ does not make sense because of this.)

Your later changes are also completely wrong. The EAT did not ‘award the case to Forstater’. It gave judgment in her favour on the point of law at issue in the appeal. Forstater has not yet been ‘awarded the case’. The actual case was heard by an employment tribunal, and the judgment is still awaited. It is possible that she may lose the actual case. But if she loses, the precedent established by the appeal will still stand.

Your edits have made a nonsense of the information in this article about the legal case. Some of your other, minor, edits, could probably stand. If you had done the edits separately for each section, it would not have been necessary to revert the whole of your edit.

You should self- revert, and then redo the edits which do not make any change to the information on the legal case.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In the previous section, I present in detail the reasoning behind my edits and pointed out some of the absurdity behind the reverts. Since I also find absurd the admonition to keep two discussions about the same issue going separately any further input from me on this will be posted up in that section. For now, I reject all the personal invective ("you leave this article alone", etc) for which, of course, you carry full reponsibility. P.S. I see this is not the first time here you have been warned for engaging in non-civil and non-constructive interaction with other editors. Shouldn't you be considering a change? -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have engaged in no personal invective. On the contrary, your edit summaries are provocative and accusatory:

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

You also did not follow the usual procedure when you were reverted. You should have immediately come to the Talk page and discussed the matter, instead of starting an edit war.

Since you insist on muddling the 2 sections, I will have to copy my previous comments to the above section.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You cannot even keep an even keel when describing a simple, trivial choice. I suggest what seems obvious and logical, i.e. to have the two sections combined, since they're about exactly the same issue, and you describe the choice as "muddling." Wow. -The Gnome (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question re: Maya Forstater Crossroads ^-talk- 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Bias?

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)

Maya Forstater became famous for the legal case which established the principle in UK law that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. This is not the same as ‘anti-transgender activism’ – she was a victim of discrimination, and took legal action accordingly. The decision in the case was that her employer had discriminated against her. Please say specifically what wording you object to, and why. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think WP:PROPORTION is being considered, and anything anyone finds on the internet, including letters to publishers (BMJ, Guardian) cited, court documents, academic self-works. As primary sources, and written by Forstater herself, they have no weight. We'd need people to write about that amazing critique of hers in the BMJ and the outstanding and groundbreaking letter she wrote to the Guardian. They aren't.

You have to remember, as founder of a campaign group, it is her job to get letters into publications. That doesn't make them notable and Wikipedia is not free webspace for the views of sex-matters.

I think a scythe should be taken to much of the career and campaigning sections. Wikipedia needs for people to be talking about her career and about her campaigning. Instead we just have mostly self-authored sources that are merely evidence of her career and that she does campaigning. The Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe is the important topic for Wikipedia. I'm afraid that Forstater is not "famous". They meet our notability requirement perhaps, but the article should essentially be a stub.

Essentially, if other people aren't writing about Forstater wrt X or Y or Z, then neither should we. -- Colin°^Talk 13:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

'Trans'

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)

I think it is clear in context that ‘trans’ refers to ‘transgender’. It is a common abbreviation in this context. By the way – that’s not how you ping someone. See WP:MENTION . Sweet6970 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID

@Snokalok: You should read MOS:GNDERID. It applies to gender. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"Male" can refer to all sorts of things, including gender. Are you ok with just clarifying that the doctor in question is a trans woman? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the change from:

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

To:

due to her belief that the doctor’s female patients may not have been able to consent to being examined by a transgender doctor

Renders the story incoherent. A female patient declining to have a transgender doctor is not the issue. The second sounds like a patient cannot consent to examination by either a trans woman or a trans man, which is not the point, and likely discriminatory, whereas being able to specify the sex of your examiner is not.

From the source:

NHS policy is that patients can choose to see a male or female GP

Right now there is a quote attributed to Forstater which is accusing the doctor of enjoying:

"intimately examining female patients without their consent"

And this is the actual quote from the doctor Forstater was referencing:

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”

Also these are the remarks I think most relevant:

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".

Which isn't really conveyed in the current text either, ie are people who consent under the duress of being found bigoted if they don't actually freely consenting?

Given this is a WP:BLP and a thorny issue, I would suggest removing the whole paragraph, and if people insist it is due get some compromise wording on talk before re-adding. Void if removed (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on overall inclusion/exclusion of the paragraph. If it stays, I think the "doctor who is a transgender woman" which precedes the content you quoted makes it clear that the doctor is not a trans man. I wouldn't object to restating it, like "examined by a transgender woman doctor", if others think that misreading is likely here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't either, frankly I'd not put it in.

If people insist on inclusion, I think it is important context from the sources that it is NHS policy that patients can choose the sex of their GP. There's nothing about declining to be seen by a transgender doctor, and the wording that was there implied that's what the argument about consent referred to. Void if removed (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with “doctor who is a transgender woman” Snokalok (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer FFF’s version to the original, because it is clearer. But referring to the doctor as ‘male’ would remove doubt. The standard convention on this is that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ refer to gender, and ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. The suggestion to refer to the doctor as a ‘transgender woman doctor’ would cause confusion.

But it is questionable whether the material is sufficiently DUE to be included in our article. If either (a) the police charge Forstater, or (b) she takes legal action against the police, then this would be significant enough to be worth including. Without either of these things, I would be content if the material stays deleted.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Male and female are obviously gendered and you are well aware of that. Snokalok (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You ought to be aware of the convention that ‘man’ and woman’ refer to gender, and ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. If one takes the view that gender identity exists, then it is, logically, distinct from sex. In this context, to say that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are ‘gendered’ just sows confusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Convention according to whom? And yes, that’s the point, transgender women are just another subcategory of women, no different from Italian women or diabetic women or women who enjoy playing frisbee. Do you disagree? Snokalok (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Sweet6970 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Then don’t go asserting nonsensical conventions that allow an editor to refer to trans women in articles as males. Snokalok (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism." *Dan T.* (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, calling trans women women in articles is newspeak, make this your hill to die on. That’s worked out for the last thousand editors who’ve done so. Snokalok (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't edit an article in a manner that knowingly violates Wikipedia policy, even when I disagree with that policy, so everything is safe from me in that regard. I hope others, including those on the opposite side of issues from me, also abide by policy even when it's inconvenient to them. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTFORUM LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what your belief system holds. Similarly, a Muslim might say "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet. Do you disagree?" But Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and isn't here to promulgate one set of beliefs over all others. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)