Thread by @MForstater

Dear @KathViner - @guardian is welcome to write about my case, but please fact check it.

Being the child of a journalist is not the same as being a journalist.

And a journalist writing about their own child is still primarily a parent.

Where are your editorial standards?

Claim 1: She repeatedly proclaimed on social media that “transwomen are men”.

Not true.

Claim 2: She repeatedly proclaimed on social media that “it is not possible for someone who is male to become female”

Not true

Claim 3: Forstater has strongly endorsed an article ...

Lets unpack that...

1. "Strongly endorsed" = I tweeted a link to an article and said it was important

2. This was after I lost my job, so what is it doing in the Guardian narrative *before* I lost my job - are they trying to suggest spurious causality?

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

3. The article is not about "transgender people’s use of pronouns" - it is about the social norm that *other people* must comply with the demand to use non sex based pronouns.

"in other words..." 🙄

No the article does not discuss trans people's desire to assert their identity or compare it to sexual violence

Guardian: if you are going to talk about the article then why not quote from it and link to it?
uncommongroundmedia.com/banned-from-me…

Claim 4: the tribunal’s ruling was that Forstater aggressively denied the identities of people with whom she might have to work

Not true

The judgment did not say that I did anything aggressively, nor that I was aggressive.

So no that was not the "basis of the judgment" it is a smear on my character entirely made up by @guardian in order to discredit me and by extension JK Rowling.

Nor does does the judgment say "denied the identities of people with whom she might have to work".

Why not quote from the actual judgment?

Because that wouldn't work as a device to smear JK Rowling.