Maya won! Here’s what I glean from the decision and what it might mean for U.S. residents

July 7, 2022

This post is available to paid subscribers only. As always, thank you for your generous support, which allows me to continue fighting for the sex-based rights of women and girls. 

---

First, Maya Forstater won! Women (and men) in the U.K. are allowed to know and say out loud that sex is real and that it matters without getting fired. Globally, this is a clear win in the fight to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to save the material reality of biological sex from the incursion of “gender identity.” 

For anyone unfamiliar with the case, Maya is a tax expert in the U.K. who had an employment contract with the Centre for Global Development (CGD) whose headquarters is in Washington D.C. A few years after CGD was founded, CGD Europe launched with a headquarters in London. Maya is of the quite reasonable view that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that this matters in certain circumstances. She expressed such views on social media and subsequently, her contract with CGD was not renewed. She sued on the basis that her “gender critical” beliefs should be protected under the law. She lost after the tribunal declared that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” She then appealed, and won - U.K. law now protects such beliefs. Then the matter proceeded to determine whether her contract was not renewed because of her beliefs and yesterday it was announced that it was.

A few disclaimers before I get into the particulars of the case. 

1. I am not a U.K. lawyer.

2. I am not an expert in employment law in any country.

3. Decisions made by U.K. courts read much differently from decisions made by U.S. courts, and it’s always a bit difficult for me to understand exactly what U.K. judges are saying. 

Having said all of that, the purpose of this post is to do my best to glean what I can from the judgment and the commentary surrounding it, and what, if anything, it might mean for U.S. residents. This is necessarily a summary and I will undoubtedly omit certain details, but I think I got the gist of it right. If any U.K. lawyers are reading this and want to correct me on any of it, please do!