Thread by @AlexPetrovnia

I’m unable to find a news article on this from any source I trust, so let’s talk about Maya Forstater and what today’s news means for trans people. 🧵

Maya Forstater is a British cis woman who filed a lawsuit when she was fired from her job for constant, truly vile anti-trans commentary directed largely at trans women. Her lawsuit was filed against the Center for Global Development.

The basis behind Forstater's lawsuit is that she claims her firing was a violation of free speech laws. This means that this case is much larger than her alone. The outcome of this case determines whether or not anti-trans rhetoric is legally classified as protected speech.

In 2019, Forstater's case was ruled against her by a tribunal, with Judge James Tayler finding that her views were, "incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" and so not subject to protection under the 2010 Equality Act.

*correction, she was not fired. She was a worker on contract and her employer chose not to renew her contract.

Forstater appealed her case and in the appeal, a high court has now overturned that decision, legally recognizing her "gender critical" beliefs as protected speech in the United Kingdom.
Think about the repercussions of that for a moment.

This means that in the United Kingdom, anti-trans rhetoric now has explicit legal protections under the Equality Act. This functionally kneecaps all possible legal attempts, going forward, to establish any tangible consequences for TERFs in the United Kingdom.

Make no mistake - this decision will kill. This decision will explicitly prevent trans people in the United Kingdom from taking any legal actions to protect themselves at their place of employment from anti-trans rhetoric. This will undoubtedly be applied elsewhere.

This functionally denies trans people in the United Kingdom from having any legal avenue to protect themselves from TERFs. I'm speechless, honestly, at the level of hate directed at trans people right now.

So let's look forward. What can we do from here? Firstly, I want to ask that trans people in the United Kingdom specifically add their need posts here.

Secondly, we MUST remember that this devastating decision is NOT reflective of the majority of individuals in the United Kingdom. independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…

In fact, 70% of the British public believe (accurately) that trans people face discrimination. ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-…

In the United States, 2/3rds of residents OPPOSE anti-transgender legislation.
pbs.org/newshour/polit…

These bills and legal decisions being passed are NOT reflective of the wishes of the people. We must continue to assert this, and encourage cis allies to be VOCAL with their support. You MUST speak up for cis lives. #TransRightsAreHumanRights #ProtectTransWomen

Which brings us to our third action item.
As we have seen, court rulings can be overturned. There are MANY activist groups in the United Kingdom actively working to legally protect trans people. Mermaids is a good example. We MUST ACTIVELY support them.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…

This means supporting trans rights vocally, this means to your peers, to your coworkers, to your family. Trans people NEED cis allies to #SpeakUpForTransLives NOW. Every moment that is wasted will have tangible negative consequences for trans people and trans lives.

This ALSO means supporting these activist organizations monetarily if you are able. Legal campaigns unfortunately are quite expensive, but absolutely critical for trans lives.

HERE is a previous thread of mine that details ways that ANYONE can tangibly act for trans rights. The first bullet point is specific to the United States, but the other 9 are applicable ANYWHERE.

https://twitter.com/AlexPetrovnia/status/1402082234274914304?s=20

To be EXPLICITLY clear, this does not mean that I did not research the issue. This means that I researched MANY sources to compile this information and add my personal takes on it. No source is without bias.

Let me add a caveat:

I thought I put enough caveated speech in the thread to make it clear that I was discussing how I believe this decision will function and the effect it will have, not how it technically *should* function based on its exact text.

To be EXPLICITLY CLEAR: This legal decision does not explicitly allow for anti-trans rhetoric to be protected in the workplace.
I do absolutely believe that this decision WILL have tangible repercussions for cultural issues and trans lives.

What legal decisions *explicitly say* and what legal decisions end up *doing* in the real world are often very different. I believe this decision will galvanize anti-trans rhetoric. I believe it will make it even more accepted. I believe it will allow many more abuses.

I believe this legal decision, which should be relatively benign if used exactly as it’s used on paper, will be misused to harm trans people. The legal system only treats people as they’re supposed to be on paper if they are affluent enough to defend themselves.

I believe the functional outcome of this decision will be detrimental, and have the effects I describe in this thread. I will add clarifications.
I do believe this decision should be regarded fearfully. I think it is naive to assume this will only have the impacts it has on paper

For clarification, the “legal classification” this falls under is dissimilar to the US variant of “protected speech”. This case ruled that Forstater could not be let go purely for expressing these beliefs in public. It does not impact harassment legalities in the workplace.

The 2010 Equality Act in question dictates whether someone can be let go from a position for holding viewpoints that are considered detrimental to society at large. This includes eugenicist views, Nazism, etc

I use the “protected speech” moniker here strategically. This legal decision means that someone cannot be let go for holding or expressing these beliefs. It does not allow hate speech at work or negate harassment laws in the workplace.

I am using the term “functionally” here very carefully, to indicate that I believe this will be the OUTCOME of this decision. The legal text does not prevent harassment claims or discrimination cases from being filed or from succeeding.

For clarification: Harassment and discrimination cases are still fileable. However, these cases are now predicated upon behavior *at work* rather than any bigoted belief or opinion expressed in personal life.