June 17, 2021


Daily Global New Media

Maya Forstater: Today's judgement on trans is a landmark

1 min read

40 thoughts on “Maya Forstater: Today's judgement on trans is a landmark

  1. We love you Maya! Well Done, sexmatters and biology is not bigotry. The world will be free from this oppressive ideology. One brick at a time it will be demolished. You have dislodged the cornerstone.

  2. People can’t change sex. Women are not men’s rehab. It’s impossible for women to know who the “bad”guys are hence the historical precedent for female only spaces. Allowing any men creates a loophole that abusers exploit to violate women and girls safety. We don’t tell anorexics to starve themselves so why are women compelled to accept lies? If men want to cross dress fine – doesn’t make them entitled to claim they’re a woman – let men widen their circle and accept them, not women.

  3. School attendance should be voluntary and voluntarily funded. Parents should decide how to educate their children. No single curriculum can be all things to all people. Different cultures will have different schools that teach different things. The more a nation-state tries create an all-inclusive national culture, the more ad hoc and superficial that culture will be. Tolerance and civility are good, but they too should be voluntary. This is the libertarian view.

  4. Why don’t you interview people like Natalie Wynn or intellectual trans people to give your viewers a real insight into the ‘trans question’ 🙄 this page has some amazing interviews but there is so clearly a strong bias and agenda. free speech warriors that gloss over the real issues in the world, where the people suffering do not have a voice and are truly under represented in media. Give them people a platform for once. In the future I think we will all look back in shame that we left trans people out of the intellectual discussion around their own validity.

  5. The agenda is communist destruction of the west. Gender nonsense is just one tool. They will just keep jumping to one lie after another.

  6. I tried to argue when I was drafted into a male army that it was discriminatory … but what was even more depressing was that conscription fits the definition of slavery. the year was 1972.
    I certainly sympathise with Ms Forstater but her argument that the sex division in prisons and toilets are there to protect women seems to cast a large shadow or vulnerable men. Though it is undeniable that men are the principal perpetrators of criminal acts, it is also true that men rank rather highly in the victims' statistics.
    I remember a debate about allotting parking spaces on a campus based on sex. Given the fact that the number of parking spaces was limited, would that then imply that other criteria should be applied to allocate the spaces.
    Wouldn't "transpersons" be particularly vulnerable?

  7. At LAST!! The big brains are finally starting to realise what the rest of us have known all along! Bravo!!

    However, this is only a landmark in so far as any loony will now be able to argue that they’ve been oppressed because of their loony beliefs. Can’t wait ’til someone takes their employer to court for insisting that they work when it’s their birthday, or some other idiocy.

  8. What should never be forgotten is not just that the self ID principle has bad effects (it allows males into womens' prisons, toilets, refuges, sports…) , it is also NOT TRUE. Identifying as a woman DOES NOT MAKE YOU A WOMAN.

  9. Freddie hit upon the thing that disturbs me about the ruling: that gender-critical belief is a matter of belief akin to belief in transgender ideology. Gender-critical beliefs are actually scientifically based as well as common sensical. I think of that as a cop out on the part of the UK Employment Tribunal and will cause problems in the future. So I don't believe that this ruling is the final word as the transgender lobby will continue to do its worst to confuse people once again on what this development means just as they have tried to use every new development to their advantage.

  10. A very stimulating video. Thanks for a memorable interview. Freddie speaks at off-handedly at 4:45 minutes of "Another American import…" apparently in reference to our latest outbreak of fanatical political correctness regarding sex and gender, the origin of Covid-19, fraught racial matters, etc. within certain powerful organizations.

    With that statement, Freddie had (I think) an impulsive outburst of smugness. That startled me, as smugness isn't characteristic of Freddie. But I DO associate smugness with myself – after all, I'm and American and I'm 74 years old, and smugness is one of the few perks we All-American "Golden Agers" feel we have a right to flaunt.
    So here's my All-American codger's smug reply to Freddie: "Has it ever occurred to you that one 'American import' the United Kingdom sorely needs is its own version our Bill of Rights (the first amendments to our national WRITTEN constitution) and nine of its amendments (with our Second Amendment excluded)?"'

    The First Amendment to our Bill of Rights (in a paraphrase of that Amendment by our National Archives) "guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion speech …"

    But isn't it the case that the NGO Ms. Forstater worked for is based in the U.S.? Yes, but I predict that one day soon, some U.S. litigant or litigants – as tenacious as Ms Forstater – will oblige our Supreme Court to rule in favor of protecting the free expression of people such as Ms. Forstater who elaborate their so-called "unacceptable" views outside the environment or context of their respective workplaces.

  11. Picking up a comment below. I suspect the average wo/man in the street has no idea what 'gender critical' thinking is all about. It took me a long time to find out myself. I would suggest (for starters, others will suggest differently) that something like 'biological feminism' could be a start.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 − four =