So, regarding my last post deletion, do we now have to agree that TW were BORN FEMALE or face deletion/banning?
It would be ludicrous timing given the important recent clarification by EHCR QC at Maya Forstater's ET Appeal summarised by ANewCreation,
"Karon Monaghan QC, representing the EHRC, (the official body charged with interpreting the Equality Act 2010 and who have not been doing a good enough job, hence Ann Sinnott's case) was using the evidence of the wording of the very Equality Act itself to say that belief in the 'immutability of sex' is already a protected belief in its own words. It's in the 2010 Act.
From the EHRC submission:
"Further, the EA 2010 itself
recognises that a religious belief that sex is immutable is a protected belief.
Thus, Sch 3, para 24 provides that it is not unlawful gender reassignment
discrimination for a person approving or solemnising a marriage under
religious rites to refuse to do so if they believe that a person’s gender has been
acquired under a Gender Recognition Certificate (corresponding provision is
made in s.5B of the Marriage Act 1949); that is, because they hold a religious
belief that sex is immutable. There can be no justifiable basis in law for
distinguishing between religious or philosophical beliefs..."
The reason that 'religions' hold the belief that our Sex is immutable is because it is immutable. Settled science. Pretty much most of the world believes it too. The sky is blue, grass is green, so I agree with Trump on one thing etc.
The reason that it is included in the Equality Act is not because surprise, only some oddball religious people think sex is immutable. No. It is because of the prohibition in various religions to religious marriage of same-sex couples.
A male person and a male person who identifies as a woman approach a Catholic priest to get married in church. UK law says even if the transwoman has a GRC so is legally female, the priest is not forced to approve or solemnise the marriage against the priest's conscience or their beliefs. If the priest refuses, this is not discrimination against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
Yes, it would be an incredibly uncomfortable conversation. Yes, feelings might be very hurt. Yes, you personally might believe that it is offensive to prevent people marrying in a religious ceremony based on their same sex orientation. The religious belief that same-sex religious marriage should be prohibited is still protected.
The Equality Act in this section shows us
- that Sex is immutable (this, even according to the Act, is still two males marrying no matter the alterations to body, dress or legal status hence religious objection is legitimate and not discrimination)
- that the word Sex as used in the Act is about biological sex and not the social role of women and girls as the original article authors, neither of whom have a GRC, might like to believe
and 3) Sex takes primacy over Gender reassignment (even though a male may have a GRC that says they are 'female', they can still be treated as the male they are in certain limited circumstances) hence the exceptions in the Equality Act - and in the GRA - for single sex spaces etc
I think it is a superb point by Karon Monaghan..."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace?pg=5