Thread by @MForstater

Foreign Policy have - kinda, sorta - corrected the false statement about me in Grace Lavery's article, and posted a correction note.

The whole paragraph is still misleading in an article which could have 30 correction notes on it.

This is what happened

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1339252272925192194

In the first version Lavery claimed I lost my job after tweeting "pronouns are rohypnol"

Lavery has a thing about this: wanting me to be known as Maya "pronouns are rohypnol" Forstater and linking my name to this article and Lavery's interpretation of it persistently

I would call this behaviour trolling:

twitter.com/search?q=rohyp…

Lavery knows I didn't write the article and knows that I tweeted it *after* I lost my job.

Putting that claim in a magazine - I think you would call this behaviour bullying

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1297436063544348674

So I emailed @ForeignPolicy but got no response.

Then I tweeted it on December 16 @'ing in @BeijingPalmer who commissioned the article, explaining the dates.

This was the response.

So I emailed again and this time they made a correction.

So now it reads " Forstater, who lost a preliminary ET hearing after tweeting a Medium article titled “Pronouns are Rohypnol,” which implicitly compared TW to rapists & was later taken down by Medium."

The bits of the paragraph that are now are correct (1) that I tweeted the article and (2) that I lost at the ET.

These two facts are in correct date order.

The linkage between them is Lavery's imagining

The part about me losing my job has been taken out altogether.

This is tedious but I have written back to @RaviReports @ForeignPolicy to point out the many errors in this one paragraph.

1) Lavery says " By her own account, Rowling was radicalized by her interest in Maya Forstater"

Rowling says her interest in the issues predate my case by two years

jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-r…

2) Lavery says "who lost a preliminary employment tribunal hearing "

Why not say something accurate about the case here - was I the employer or the employee? What was the case ? What was the reason for the loss?

Some description might be relevant here.

3) Lavery says "After tweeting a Medium article titled “Pronouns are Rohypnol"

....As you can see from the tweet I linked to an article published by uncommon ground not by Medium

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1135540452499828736

4) Lavery says "which implicitly compared trans women to rapists"

This is Lavery's spin

The fact that the judgment came "after" I tweeted a link to the article is a spurious connection. ET did not read or refer to the content of the article, it was not in evidence.

5) "and was later taken down by Medium"

Again Lavery seems to be having trouble with the concepts of before and after here. As you can see from my tweet the article had *already* been taken down by Medium

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1135540452499828736

(Why are Medium's moderation decisions about an article that I didn't write, and which the judge didn't read deemed more relevant than giving any word of accurate description about the matter of my case ?)

All this to prove that "The anti-trans trolls are worryingly close to the friendlier and more mainstream faces of gender critical activism"

Does Lavery mean I am an anti-trans troll because I tweeted the article?

Or that the author is an anti-trans troll because she wrote it?

So the evidence that JK Rowling is "worryingly close" to "anti-trans trolls" is that

... I tweeted an article which Grace Lavery dislikes

There are bigger issues with the article than it being used to smear me in order to smear JK Rowling, but still it grates that @ForeignPolicy thinks this is an ok way to treat people.

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1339813242055643137