Maya Forstater: Woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweet

PreparationH

Another brilliant step forward for real, actual, verifiable truth over ideological driven wants.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579


Today Maya Forstater won her case; it is now illegal in the UK to fire someone stating objective reality. While it might take a while as so many people in Ireland erroneously still believe that T is gay 2.0, I do believe we can do the right thing by our children especially, repeal this gender nonsense and place Sex firmly back at the center where it belongs.


Be braver than yesterday, fight this good fight.

Gatling

Well done Maya ,

Common sense finally prevailed

It's actually an interesting ruling beyond the trans issue, for free speech in general. Justice Choudry seems to have set a precedent in law that any belief which falls short of being "Nazism or totalitarian" will pass the Grainger V test, regardless of whether it is "offensive". I imagine that many philosophical beliefs would fall down on criteria I-IV, but it still seems like a win for people who hold free speech as a fundamental value of free democratic society.

This article is a long-but-good exploration of what ramifications could be expected after this judgment.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly

Spanish Eyes

A rebalance is evident now. Women can now say they that they do not believe transwomen who self ID are women. All based on sex rather than deciding on a gender it seems.

The infiltration of women's spaces by transgender idealogues and the criminalisation of those who criticised this was far too insidious and powerful for the numbers involved. I am heartened by the judgment for free speech and reality. Stonewall is self immolating too. Good.

A lot of these sorts of tweets popping up:

https://twitter.com/mlothianmclean/status/1402924859945017345

Which is odd, since Forstater has never, to my knowledge, expressed a desire to harass, discriminate against or intimidate trans people. She just does not believe that humans are sequentially hermaphroditic.

It seems very disingenuous for a group of activists to spend months gloating in the bailey that a woman has been fired for saying that transwomen are not female... and then, when the judgment goes the other way, to to run back up to the motte and pretend that it was in any way related to harassment or discrimination of trans people.

suicide_circus

Well yes there is a fair amount of scrambling going on on twitter to muddy the waters.

Gatling

She didn't harass or discriminate against anyone ,


she told the truth

PreparationH

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of these sorts of tweets popping up:

Which is odd, since Forstater has never, to my knowledge, expressed a desire to harass, discriminate against or intimidate trans people. She just does not believe that humans are sequentially hermaphroditic.

It seems very disingenuous for a group of activists to spend months gloating in the bailey that a woman has been fired for saying that transwomen are not female... and then, when the judgment goes the other way, to to run back up to the motte and pretend that it was in any way related to harassment or discrimination of trans people.

It is my experience that Everything is transphobic and even the thought of having a discussion about T is considered transphobic. The slur is cast around so much now that it has got as much value as a GRC.

keano_afc

Today is a good day.

circadian

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

mewso

circadian wrote: »

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

You haven't been watching enough alt-right youtubers. Watch enough of them and you'll soon see how our way of life is being attacked. Tweet by tweet.

Gatling

circadian wrote: »

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

This is the problem you can identify as anything you want and there is no issue ,but it a woman and it's mainly women come out and say you can be whatever you want but it's doesn't mean I or we have to believe it than some randomer on twitter calls your employer and tells then your making transhobic statements and you they need to be sacked or they ring the police and report them for transhobic hate crimes ,
It's been weaponoised by a small cohort of Tra and groups

PreparationH

circadian wrote: »

I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

• How would you feel if the intimate care nurse assigned to your elderly mother was a fully intact biological male? And if she complained about it she'd be called a bigot?
• How would you feel if your daughter was forced to share toilets with biological males?
• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
• How does it feel to know that Stonewall were telling huge massive porkies about what the law says re: gender recognition?
• How does it feel to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while these things were brought in by many organizations to help what they saw as a marginalized minority, the structures and denial of even the most basic discussion has provided a cloak for some very dodgy characters and predatory males to do whatever they wanted to do and if anyone said anything, all they had to say was "TRANSPHOBE!" and all of their detractors melted away?

You have got a LOT of catching up to do

PreparationH

mewso wrote: »

You haven't been watching enough alt-right youtubers. Watch enough of them and you'll soon see how our way of life is being attacked. Tweet by tweet.

Alt right... or maybe it's just a complete lack of maturity to see things in black/white - good/evil Maybe the world is more nuanced than the teenagers thought process.... *shock horror!

Cordell

circadian wrote: »

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

You don't have to understand, you only have to accept their right to voice these things, including racist views, without facing any kind of punishment from the law or their employer.
It's absolutely unacceptable to get fired because things you say in your free time and not representing your employer.

Gentlemanne

Worth pointing out that despite everyone saying she was fired, that's not what happened. She just didn't have her contract renewed.

Personally I like to have the basic facts of the topic before I discuss it, but it seems like that's a standard not everyone abides by.

Gatling

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Worth pointing out that despite everyone saying she was fired, that's not what happened. She just didn't have her contract renewed.
.

Aka fired

suicide_circus

circadian wrote: »

While I don't think she should have been punished for voicing her opinion (as long as it wasn't incendiary, racist etc) I don't understand why people are so worried about what gender someone else identifies as. I simply do not understand why people are so concerned with what someone else does in their own life that has absolutely no bearing on their own

To continue with the parlance, no one cares what you "identify" as. But that does not trump another persons right to recognise biological reality.

So courtesy aside, does this mean "misgendering" someone is not in fact a heinous crime, but is merely "correctly sexing" ?

A win for common sense.

Gentlemanne

Gatling wrote: »

Aka fired

Not even worth reading more of this thread if it's going to devolve into semantics but the legal implications of her just not having her contract renewed vs. a formal dismissal is huge, especially in a case like this which wil set precedence.

Potential-Monke

I love if you Google Maya Forstater contract details and the first 2 results are:

Maya Forstater: Woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender ...https://www.bbc.com › news
6 hours ago — Ms Forstater, from St Albans in Hertfordshire, did not have her contract renewed at the think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) in March ...
Missing: details ‎| Must include: details

Maya Forstater: Woman loses tribunal over transgender ... - BBChttps://www.bbc.com › news
19 Dec 2019 — Maya Forstater, 45, did not have her contract renewed after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans to let people declare their ...
Missing: details ‎| Must include: details

---

Re: Contract not renewed vs fired, we'd need more details to see if it's related to the tweets. If she could (and did?) prove that it wasn't renewed because of the tweets, it's basically the same as being fired (minus all the really negative stuff that goes with it). TBH, these contract jobs, I never liked them. The uncertaintly of employment would get to me. Granted, I know I can be let go at any time with proper notice, but still, I'm sure Maya was able to link them. She won anyway, and it's a win for common sense imo. Yes, we should be mindful of what we call people, but this case has proven that finally, feelings will not win over scientific facts.

mcmoustache

Cordell wrote: »

You don't have to understand, you only have to accept their right to voice these things, including racist views, without facing any kind of punishment from the law or their employer.
It's absolutely unacceptable to get fired because things you say in your free time and not representing your employer.

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Gentlemanne

mewso wrote: »

You haven't been watching enough alt-right youtubers. Watch enough of them and you'll soon see how our way of life is being attacked. Tweet by tweet.

Radicalisation by YouTube is an unfortunate thing that's seeming more and more relevant.

It doesn't have to be "5G Vaccine Microchip" level but insidious stuff like anti-trans content is unfortunately really prevalent.

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

... this case has proven that finally, feelings will not win over scientific facts.

To a certain extent, I think many among the scientific community (I count myself among them) didn't distinguish itself, in kow towing to the subversion of scientific fact for nonsense.

Shades of Galileo.

Fantastic news. Like how the Earth isn't flat, trans-women aren't women. Saying such is not hateful, it is factual.

Science will prevail.

mcmoustache

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Radicalisation by YouTube is an unfortunate thing that's seeming more and more relevant.

It doesn't have to be "5G Vaccine Microchip" level but insidious stuff like anti-trans content is unfortunately really prevalent.

Just watch a Joe Rogan video and see what your suggestions look like after. It'll start to look like the youtube feed of that overweight acquaintance who couldn't get the ride and hates women as a result.


That being said, a lot of the pushback against things like self id aren't a creation of the alt-right ecosystem - rather, the apparent absurdity of it is being used as a hook to drag otherwise reasonable people into that type of stuff.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just watch a Joe Rogan video and see what your suggestions look like after. It'll start to look like the youtube feed of that overweight acquaintance who couldn't get the ride and hates women as a result.


That being said, a lot of the pushback against things like self id aren't a creation of the alt-right ecosystem - rather, the apparent absurdity of it is being used as a hook to drag otherwise reasonable people into that type of stuff.

I've watched Joe Rogan clips and my feed gave started giving Lex Friedman and MMA videos, so I think the results you are getting is a reflection on you more than anything.

mcmoustache

Hhhhh wrote: »

I've watched Joe Rogan clips and my feed gave started giving Lex Friedman and MMA videos, so I think the results you are getting is a reflection on you more than anything.

Depends on what was already there I guess.

Hercule Poirot

I think the crux of the matter here is that she simply stated her beliefs, which she is fully entitled to do. It's no different to someone saying they believe in God, it's a belief.

She didn't call trans people derogatory names or verbally abuse any - she did absolutely nothing wrong.

This a long overdue victory for common sense.

ceadaoin.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Yeah but saying that a human being can't literally change their sex is an actual fact and is hardly on same level as a child rapist is it? What a ridiculous comparison

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Worth pointing out that despite everyone saying she was fired, that's not what happened. She just didn't have her contract renewed.

Personally I like to have the basic facts of the topic before I discuss it, but it seems like that's a standard not everyone abides by.

She didn't have her contract renewed because of her views. It was a de-facto firing. Had she not publicly stated what she did her contract would likely have been renewed.

Cordell

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Honestly and between you and me, you should take him out of the back and make him disappear
But no, if the employee views are driving away customers, tough luck. You won't fire an openly gay one that drives away homophobes.

mcmoustache

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but saying that a human being can't literally change their sex is an actual fact and is hardly on same level as a child rapist is it? What a ridiculous comparison

I was responding to the post that I was responding to. It stated, in absolute terms that:

It's absolutely unacceptable to get fired because things you say in your free time and not representing your employer.

I provided a counter example. I even bolded it in my response to make it clear to other readers what I was responding to.

mcmoustache

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter here is that she simply stated her beliefs, which she is fully entitled to do. It's no different to someone saying they believe in God, it's a belief.

It's got a bit more grounding in reality than a belief in a god, in fairness.

Housefree

PreparationH wrote: »

[
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
  

I get your other points, but this is just having an issue with males as troop leaders. AFAIK troop leaders can still be male or female so it should be a non issue.

Calahonda52

What does gender-critical beliefs mean please?

Calahonda52

Calahonda52 wrote: »

What does gender-critical beliefs mean please?

Someone who says that Trans-women aren't women, or that trans-men aren't men. Or says that a women is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Or says that ones sex is observed at birth as opposed to being assigned at birth.

mcmoustache

Cordell wrote: »

Honestly and between you and me, you should take him out of the back and make him disappear
But no, if the employee views are driving away customers, tough luck. You won't fire an openly gay one that drives away homophobes.

I'm struggling to see how that could arise. I can't think of many businesses that depend on homophobes (orange sashes, halal foodstores maybe?) which would also be in high demand in terms of jobs for openly gay folk. I also can't see it driving business away - even homophobes want to see a gay person to moan about later and harp on about how the world's going to shít. All this is somewhat moot though, given legislation and all that.

mcmoustache

Hhhhh wrote: »

Someone who says that Trans-women aren't women, or that trans-men aren't men. Or says that a women is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Or says that ones sex is observed at birth as opposed to being assigned at birth.

That's the far end of the spectrum. Gender-critical also includes those not on board with self-id. I sort of get the idea behind self-id but it does lead to some absurd situations.

RWCNT

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

So courtesy aside, does this mean "misgendering" someone is not in fact a heinous crime, but is merely "correctly sexing" ?

No, apparently not:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUQ_SXIAAeK4u?format=jpg&name=medium

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

No, apparently not:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUQ_SXIAAeK4u?format=jpg&name=medium

Whats that from?

archfi

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter here is that she simply stated her beliefs, which she is fully entitled to do. It's no different to someone saying they believe in God, it's a belief.

She didn't call trans people derogatory names or verbally abuse any - she did absolutely nothing wrong.

This a long overdue victory for common sense.

This is it in a nutshell.
Though you wouldn't know if all you read and watched was within a certain bubble.
Remember now extreme activists, believing sex is immutable is not a 'nazi' nor 'totalitarian' belief.
Good day for sanity though to actually have to appeal to a higher tribunal to assert a fact like that is all kinds of wrong.

archfi

Hhhhh wrote: »

She didn't have her contract renewed because of her views. It was a de-facto firing. Had she not publicly stated what she did her contract would likely have been renewed.

She was on the road to fulltime contract - they, over a short time reduced the contract status from fulltime within a timeframe to accredited to advisory to consultant (I may have the terms wrong), all following her legal right to voice her beliefs.
CGD are a US HQ'd thinktank. Nuff said.

Tilden Katz

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of these sorts of tweets popping up:

https://twitter.com/mlothianmclean/status/1402924859945017345

Which is odd, since Forstater has never, to my knowledge, expressed a desire to harass, discriminate against or intimidate trans people. She just does not believe that humans are sequentially hermaphroditic.

It seems very disingenuous for a group of activists to spend months gloating in the bailey that a woman has been fired for saying that transwomen are not female... and then, when the judgment goes the other way, to to run back up to the motte and pretend that it was in any way related to harassment or discrimination of trans people.

Arrah, they’re just desperately trying to come to terms with today’s ruling and rationalise it in their minds. Let them off. :pac:

Anyway, a wonderful outcome. Sense prevails.

Tilden Katz

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Worth pointing out that despite everyone saying she was fired, that's not what happened. She just didn't have her contract renewed.

Personally I like to have the basic facts of the topic before I discuss it, but it seems like that's a standard not everyone abides by.

If she could reasonably have expected to have her contact renewed otherwise, it’s the same difference as far as I’m concerned.

_Kaiser_

suicide_circus wrote: »

To continue with the parlance, no one cares what you "identify" as. But that does not trump another persons right to recognise biological reality.

This.

The problem seems to arise when others refuse to buy into someone's chosen identity.

And that's the key word - chosen. Someone's personal view on their identity does not change biological or historical fact.

The whole idea that people who refuse to accept a choice as fact should be abused, lose their jobs, or face other sanctions is frankly ridiculous and fundamentally wrong.

As with all identity politics and most social media crusades in general the rule is - believe whatever you want, but don't expect others to validate you - because just as you have that right, so too do they have the right to disagree with you.

We really - as a society - need to stop feeding these victim narratives and enabling bullying under the guise of progress

RWCNT

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Whats that from?

The judgement itself.

The whole thing is up here - https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

The judgement itself.

The whole thing is up here - https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

That's fair enough, don't discriminate or harrass anyone (as defined under the EqA), applies to "both sides"; wonder will TRA now not harass those with gender critical views speaking out...

volchitsa

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was responding to the post that I was responding to. It stated, in absolute terms that:

I provided a counter example. I even bolded it in my response to make it clear to other readers what I was responding to.

Presumably you should have taken it as read that the poster wasn't referring to criminal activities though? :rolleyes:

mcmoustache

I know very little about the Transgender debates or the issues around it. I have no dog in that race at all - and it has never come into my spheres in life yet. So I do not really know what the ruling means. But if it means a win for free speech over the forces who seek to silence or punish people for what they say and think - then it is a win in my view. I am not a "free speech extremist" I think. But I am not far off

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah now. If people stopped frequenting my widget business because an employee was tweeting about his fantasies about fúcking babies, I don't think I should be required to keep him on. That guy costing me money would need to go.

Well yes - if you have an employee who is breaking the law, expressing loudly their desire to break the law, or is inciting others to break the law then I too would support your right to fire such an employee. If you have no such right I would sign any petitions for the government to give you them. The problem is with your employee in that case.

The reason your analogy fails however is that if your employee is losing you money because they are something - think something - or represent something entirely legal that the customers simply dislike - then I do not think your loss of money should over rule basic employee legal protections in most cases. Whatever they happen to be. (I can think of exceptions where my opinions are grey and unsure though). The problem here is with your customers in that case.

So your employee might turn out to support trump - or be heinously ugly - or be transgender - or be a muslim or a jew - or be homosexual. And your customers who are anti trump - sexist - transphobic - islamophobic - antisemitic - or homophobic take issue with it. That's unfortunate and I feel for you - I really do - but your employee still has rights I hope. Especially if they are competently performing the job you hired them to do.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Depends on what was already there I guess.

It likely also depends _which_ Joe Rogan videos you watch. The algorithm on you tube likely works on knowing what other people who watch one of his episodes also watch. So if you watch two or three episodes of Rogan where he has comedians on - and the alogirthm knows that many other people who also watched it were into comedy - you will likely get a string of video suggestions for other comedians.

If however you watch the episode (relevant partially to this thread I guess) where he had Abigail Shrier on - then your you tube feed is going to suddenly hit a lot of Transgender and Anti Transgender results.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And that's the key word - chosen. Someone's personal view on their identity does not change biological or historical fact.

As I said above I know very little about this subject. But I do wonder if the word "chosen" is entirely useful? What aspect of their condition - the people who actually are transgender that is rather than anyone who has become convinced they are or is just claiming to be for whatever reason - is chosen?

During the homosexual morality and homosexual marriage debates the idea they "choose" to be homosexual was also thrown around a bit. And I doubted at that time too that they were choosing their sexuality. And many (if not most) of the people posting on those topics who were gay said as much themselves too.

I am not convinced what they choose and what they do not. I know so little about it - but I have my doubts they choose it any more than people with Body integrity dysphoria do. And as such my position is one of empathy for them and a wish to go as far as is sane to alleviate any suffering they have.

But where that line "sane" is drawn is likely where most of the real wars are fought on this subject. And it is such wars I have tended to keep out of. At least until I have a dog in the fight for whatever reason. Or someone directly challenges me to accept subjectivity over scientific facts. Which thus far no one has

circadian

PreparationH wrote: »

• How would you feel if the intimate care nurse assigned to your elderly mother was a fully intact biological male? And if she complained about it she'd be called a bigot?
• How would you feel if your daughter was forced to share toilets with biological males?
• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
• How does it feel to know that Stonewall were telling huge massive porkies about what the law says re: gender recognition?
• How does it feel to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while these things were brought in by many organizations to help what they saw as a marginalized minority, the structures and denial of even the most basic discussion has provided a cloak for some very dodgy characters and predatory males to do whatever they wanted to do and if anyone said anything, all they had to say was "TRANSPHOBE!" and all of their detractors melted away?

You have got a LOT of catching up to do

Is that right aye? Let's take this one point by point then.

• How would you feel if the intimate care nurse assigned to your elderly mother was a fully intact biological male? And if she complained about it she'd be called a bigot?
  I'd have no problem with a "fully intact" male (sounds like some bull**** Computing Forever would come out with) performing this service, I'd hold a male nurse to the same standards as a female nurse, in fact I'd hold a nurse to the same standard as any other nurse regardless of gender. It's not that hard to do. I know for a fact my ma wouldn't complain because she raised me to be fair and open, and if she did complain I'd expect her to have a bit more tact than to refer to someone as "biologically intact male".
  
• How would you feel if your daughter was forced to share toilets with biological males?
  Again, I have no issue here. If my daughter has a problem with it then I'd seek alternatives, otherwise if she's happy I'm happy
  
• How would you feel if your vulnerable female relative was forced to share her prison cell with a fully intact biological male? And when the door was locked she was truly alone?
  I'd have more issue with a vulnerable person being forced to share a prison cell with anyone if they have requirements to the contrary. Men aren't the only dangerous people in prison, I'm sure you know that but sure throw in your "biologically intact male" ****e as you see fit.
  
• How would you feel if your daughters athletic scholarship was robbed off her by a beta-male who calls himself female?
  My daughter plays mixed gender football and is better than a lot of the boys. As for allowing transgender competition in your example. I'm undecided as there ihasn't been enough research on the subject. I certainly don't support the "men are naturally stronger and better than women at sport" talking point but I am open to correction through scientific study.
  
• How would you feel if you found out that your son's and daughters were going away on a scouting weekend with the local troop and there was a fully intact biological male alone with them as their leader and the other scout leaders were told that they could not reveal the truth about the fox in the coop?
  I'd have no issue with it. What fox in the coop? Are you suggesting that because someone is transgender that they are a sexual predator? In fact you previous posts all point to yes, you seem to be implying that.
  
• How would you feel that the biological male in the troop could hide his real name and past by threatening anyone who asked questions with the sin of dead-naming...
  I'd have more issue with the scouting troop accepting someone to take care of children if they are unable to verify their background
  
• How does it feel to know that Stonewall were telling huge massive porkies about what the law says re: gender recognition?
  I'm not familiar with this and therefore cannot address this point
  
• How does it feel to know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while these things were brought in by many organizations to help what they saw as a marginalized minority, the structures and denial of even the most basic discussion has provided a cloak for some very dodgy characters and predatory males to do whatever they wanted to do and if anyone said anything, all they had to say was "TRANSPHOBE!" and all of their detractors melted away?
  Hyperbole? Certainly reads like it