Another Labour councillor resigns over Cambridge City Council's transgender policies

the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

You are just making things up now.

This belief is actually what is protected in the claim to transgender status, and it's important for feminists to understand this. 'Trans' is not an immutable characteristic of human beings, it is not even the state of having had certain medical procedures done to one's body. It is a metaphysical claim to be the opposite sex, and it is this metaphysical claim that is protected by laws that protect transgender status, and which is protected by increasingly ubiquitous social taboos, particularly around language. This reasoning was on display by the judge in Maya's case:

I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

He is explicitly prioritising the metaphysical claim of the (hypothetical) trans employee to have changed sex, and saying that by challenging this belief, Maya is violating the hypothetical trans employee's dignity. This is what I mean when I say that what is protected in laws around 'trans rights' is not the right of the person to fair and equal treatment as a person, but rather the reification by everyone else of their claim to have changed sex.

This is why talk of 'balancing rights' is ultimately futile - you can't balance women's sex-based rights with 'transgender rights' when the foundational claim of the latter is the 'right' to be treated as a sex which you are not.

Trans activists understand this, that's why they are so uncompromising in their refusal to acknowledge that sex is ever relevant to anything. Not sports, not prisons, not medicine. To an outsider, it might look like foolish overreach when they go to the mat for male sex offenders in women's prisons, or men in women's rugby. Not so. They understand their cause perfectly, which is that 'trans rights' depends on a metaphysical claim, and thus the primacy of this claim must be asserted in all circumstances for it to maintain its coherence. They know that any admission that sex might sometimes be more salient than gender identity is fatal to the metaphysics on which 'trans rights' wholly depends.

My central point in this thread is not to offer legal advice (!), but to remind everyone of the broader societal trend that I see in motion, and to illuminate the underlying logic that is driving it, which IMO is what we need to be tackling, rather than throwing ourselves one after another on the rocks of a powerful cultural movement that at this point in time feels overwhelming and unstoppable.

the larger social trend is to treat a claim of transgender status as a protected characteristic

Court cases are about the law on the statute books.

You have to be in serious denial about what is actually happening to think that employers or any other party are demanding proof of a GRC before honouring a claim to transgender status.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not require a GRC. What have I said about employers demanding proof of a GRC. Nothing. The application of this PC has NOT CHANGED.

the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

You are just making things up now.

Honestly I don't know why amateur lawyers like yourself do this here, it goes on a lot and it worries people sick about hugely inflated risks which bear no relationship to the number of cases, actual disciplinary and dismissal process that exist in most companies.

This man is not at risk of dismissal.

It's not a feminist thing to do, to speak incorrectly to women about their rights and protections at work. Surely the point of feminism is to break down misinformation and help, not to write this distorted doom.

Transwomen can only be considered women if the definition of 'woman' has been officially changed. As far as I know, neither the scientific nor the dictionary definition of 'woman' has changed. Good for Kevin Price.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment HAS NOT CHANGED.

I'm aware. Nevertheless, the larger social trend is to treat a claim of transgender status as a protected characteristic. You have to be in serious denial about what is actually happening to think that employers or any other party are demanding proof of a GRC before honouring a claim to transgender status.

The GRA enshrined the fiction of 'sex change' into law, which reified the notion of 'transgender' as a protected class, and now the claim to trans status itself is enough to afford a person (even a hypothetical person) protected status. Crucially, this protection is not about the right to respectful and equal treatment as a person, it is the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

Do you genuinely think students and college special interest groups have had staff management responsibility legally delegated to them by the professional staff employed for that purpose?

Of course not. There are many recent instances of universities firing, suspending or failing to support staff who are targeted by student mobs, however. I hope that doesn't happen here, but given the wider cultural trend, surely none of us will be surprised if it does?

It's called sarcasm. Because adults don't do that.

However - how do you propose letting them know that orchestrating a campaign against someone isn't right? Maybe they aren't mature enough or have the critical faculties to be there anyway.

*And maybe set up a petition to have the lead bullies sent down (is that the expression)?That would be amusing...

Is being amused at a petition wanting students to be kicked out of education for inane ravings not a bit over the top? Tit for tat? Colleges have a difficult task with these young people but they definitely won't be bullying them back or acting to reward their bullying.

Students don't manage staff, they are not responsible for staff disciplinary procedures, and are not legal advisors to the employer... Do you genuinely think students and college special interest groups have had staff management responsibility legally delegated to them by the professional staff employed for that purpose?

Of course we know that the students aren't the employers and don't have the authority to terminate anybody's contract. The point is, though, that they're trying to make that happen by using other levers at their disposal - eg. bombarding those who could sack him with complaints. Will they succeed? Probably not - yet the fact that this is what passes for progressive activism in student circles nowadays is simply extraordinary, and highly worthy of discussion. No wonder those on this thread are upset - it's absolutely disgusting.

Donkey I think you raise interesting points around the culture generally. Self ID didn't go through - so gender hasn't replaced sex.... at least for now. The Cambridge City Council transgender motion behaved as if Self ID had gone through and that gender trumps sex. and you're right .... all across society in government, local councils, hospitals, colleges, sports.... policies, laws, guidelines and motions get passed in which gender trumps sex ... and people can and do lose their jobs/contracts and their right to speak for sex based rights in hostile environments.

Ann Sinnott's case is important

some good points in this thread

I think it should be a human right to be allowed to discuss the impact of gender identity ideology on sex-based rights, without being abused, cancelled and hounded out of your job. We're citizens of a democracy and should be allowed to discuss the impact of any ideology on any of the 9 protected characteristics in the Equality act. The government should consult all groups impacted by proposed changes to law, policy and guidelines - rather than only consult with extremist factions claiming to represent one group. Many trans people disagree with these students.

Maya's case is important

I believe that they can harass him at work, that they can orchestrate a campaign of raising all sorts of complaints about him, write letters/boycott/picket... make his working life crap until he thinks 'I've had enough'. Have you never been bullied at work? These are motivated activists with too much time on their hands.

the nub of the problem, which is the creation of 'transgender status' as a protected class, akin to race or sex

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment HAS NOT CHANGED.

(and often legally compelled)

Where and how. Examples please. If it's often you can give us all a long list of the legal compulsions.

Students don't manage staff, they are not responsible for staff disciplinary procedures, and are not legal advisors to the employer.

They are simply people with a grievance and not one that is sufficient grounds for dismissal in this case.

Do you genuinely think students and college special interest groups have had staff management responsibility legally delegated to them by the professional staff employed for that purpose?

I understand that employment tribunal judgments are not binding. Nevertheless, these rulings indicate the way the culture is trending, including the legal culture.

I am not looking to upset anybody. I am trying to point to the nub of the problem, which is the creation of 'transgender status' as a protected class, akin to race or sex. Once a society does that, it becomes very difficult for its members to dissent from trans ideology, as you are de facto discriminating against (and thus harming) persons who now have protected status on the basis of claiming to be the opposite sex.

This claim is given sacred status by the culture at large, and others are socially pressured (and often legally compelled) to treat them as if they have changed sex. To refuse to do so is morally equated with racism or disability discrimination, as the claim to 'trans' status, by sleight-of-hand, takes on the quality of an immutable characteristic in this framework.

It is necessary to understand that this is what we are up against, and this is why Maya lost, why Kevin will probably lose, why many others who come up against this ideology will continue to lose. If we don't challenge this foundational claim - that by refusing to treat a person as a sex which they not, you are harming them - then other challenges will ultimately fail.

Noting like the man here then? Arent they calling for him to be sacked because he isnt a believer?

pretend to believe it or be faced with the sack

Again, this is nonsense.

Notice the slippery sleight of hand by the LGBT+ Officer?

Fact: Kevin Price retweets 'BBC might want to rethink BBC born in the wrong body' programmes, in reply to BBC news story on TAVI clinician concerns going back 15 years.

Sleight of hand: Kevin Price retweets 'posts and stories critical of transgender rights.'

Lie It's a 'transgender right' that no-one criticises the NHS gender identity clinic. It's a 'transgender right' that no-one questions promoting 'born in the wrong body'

They're fabricating transgender rights

Surely demanding you parrot phrases, pretend to believe it or be faced with the sack, or be in the situation where you freeze when someone else enters the ladies loo because whatever you do it will be 'wrong', or knowing that your employer is willfully breaking the EA but you can't say it because you will get into trouble - this all isn't exactly creating a jolly workplace?

Whose dignity had top trumps here? Because it certainly isn't mine, thanks.

Thanks @GreenUp

I've just emailed the Senior Tutor and the Master

Maya wasn't breaking the law either when she tweeted 'men cannot change into women'. Nevertheless, her employer saw fit to sack her because of this tweet, and an employment tribunal held that the sacking was lawful because her views 'violated the dignity' of people who claim transgender status.

This is not accurate. She wasn't sacked.

Employment tribunal judgments are not binding on anyone else (even other employment tribunals).

There's a medium article debunking these myths written by Maya.

Sacking someone is much much harder than simply not renewing a contract, and vice versa, a tribunal claim for not renewing is much harder.

Thus, anyone who questions the philosophical basis of 'trans' is violating your dignity and creating a hostile workplace. This has already been established by the employment courts.

Again, completely untrue. Don't write rubbish like this here, it upsets people and is a really shitty thing to do on a feminist board.

According to the Clare website, the Senior Tutor is Dr Jacqueline Tasioulas. Her email is listed on the Tutors page: www.clare.cam.ac.uk/Clare-Tutors/

It might be worth emailing her, in support of Kevin as she is the person meeting him.

He declined to sign up to a nonsensical statement - I can't see how he is breaking the law

Maya wasn't breaking the law either when she tweeted 'men cannot change into women'. Nevertheless, her employer saw fit to sack her because of this tweet, and an employment tribunal held that the sacking was lawful because her views 'violated the dignity' of people who claim transgender status.

The claim to transgender status functions as a sort of lese-majeste in our society: to question that a person is not actually the opposite sex is to insult their dignity, and they are entitled to demand you be punished for this insult. In this climate how can Kevin Price be allowed to hold the views that he does, while serving students who claim transgender status?

I sincerely hope that Clare does support him, but I'll be very surprised if they do. A cadre of students are claiming that his presence insults and endangers a protected class of students, and that is the salient fact here. It is not about a clash of opinions, but about the fact that claiming to be 'trans' affords one protected status. Thus, anyone who questions the philosophical basis of 'trans' is violating your dignity and creating a hostile workplace. This has already been established by the employment courts.

Parents of kids at Oxford are frantically texting them...

Now being reported in The Daily Mail as well: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8883575/Cambridge-students-demand-transphobic-Labour-politician-loses-college-porter-job.html

He declined to sign up to a nonsensical statement - I can't see how he is breaking the law: 'Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary individuals are non-binary.'

www.varsity.co.uk/news/20079
www.spectator.co.uk/article/shame-on-the-cambridge-students-hounding-kevin-price