Now that gender critical beliefs are a protected philosophical belief

But I’m also really interested in the judge’s comment re pc of gender reassignment only being applicable to a proportion of trans people.
Does he mean applicable only to those who are ‘indistinguishable’, or have a GRC? (which is in opposition to EHRC and judge in Ann Sinnott’s case).
Or, could he mean not applicable to non-binary people? Maya’s accidental misgendering of the non-binary Gregor Murray was used as evidence of manifestation of belief in her original tribunal. This would not concord with the Land Rover ruling, I believe.
I find it really interesting, hope there’s some legal discussion on it.

I don’t think correctly referring to someone’s sex, is harassment or undignified. Pronouns are not slurs.
At work, I wouldn’t argue with/correct a colleague who was trans about their preferred pronouns. I wouldn’t argue with/correct other colleagues who used preferred pronouns. I reserve the right not to use them, and not be argued with/corrected in return. No-one is being compelled with regard to their speech, to express a belief they do not hold.
I believe this was the outcome of the bakers in NI re the message on a wedding cake. But, I think there needs to be more guidance.

That was about the time that the leadership candidates almost all signed that horrible pledge to throw GC people out of the party.

That pledge, and the MPs who signed it promoted discrimination of people with a protected belief. Labour will need to get a grip on the abuse and discrimination within the party or they will face another EHRC investigation

I'd also like Lang back.

And the rest.

I'm hoping it will help the case the Guiders are bringing against guides...

Thanks Catherina, but none of those things had anything to do with it.

And again the same in reverse.....

For employers and similar organisations, the approach to equality and diversity training as relevant to sex and gender issues must never be a box ticking exercise. Such an approach – for example solely by an adoption of Gender Theory principles and training – is not only inadequate, it is a significant legal risk. A workforce which receives training on only one theory of sex and gender, and which eschews any alternative, is a workforce in which discrimination is more likely to occur.
…
Similarly, policies which demand a positive adoption of tenets of Gender Theory - such as directing the mandatory insertion of pronouns in email footers – are not the tool of inclusivity that they may have been presented or even intended: such practices may exclude those with protected Gender Critical beliefs (quite apart from the fact that they may necessitate the outing of trans people who have no desire to be outed). They may be evidence of the hostile environment described at s.26(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, providing support to claims of unlawful harassment, or otherwise demonstrate direct or indirect discrimination.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly?

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

Ah, thanks, it was in context of a relevant work subject, noted by someone who wasn't even in the discussion, and reported to my employer, Stasi-style.
I'll have a think about it, thank you.

I’ve not read the judgment in full, but two things that caught my interest were that we need a test case on what constitutes harassment re not using preferred pronouns. Not sure if Maya’s tribunal will address this. Also, J. Choudhury made an interesting comment that the pc of gender reassignment might not be relevant to all trans persons, and I would like to know where/if this fits, given AEA v EHRC, and Land Rover.

smithsinarazz - similar here, added my voice on the GRA review and was accused of transphobia and invited to leave the CLP. Which I didn't.

"philosophical belief" - that in itself is a joke. There is nothing philosophical about it.

About eighteen months ago I was active in the local Constituency Labour Party. That was about the time that the leadership candidates almost all signed that horrible pledge to throw GC people out of the party. A few months later the GC Chair resigned, sending a distressed email to the members saying that she'd been called a bigot for her views. There was no apology, no reflection, no consideration of whether people had behaved appropriately. Was the LP creating a hostile environment for GC people? I say it was.

The reporting on the BBC says that there was no evidence that she had harassed anyone.

And that lie has been very widely shared.

So that's something that has come out of it.

Again you've missed the point of the ruling....

Feel free to try and keep gas lighting but it won't work.

It's a very important judgement that confirms GC views cannot be discriminated against.

It's not, or ever was the intention of the case to say it's acceptable to discriminate against someone's gender reassignment.

It's simply saying the same in reverse, that you can't discriminate on the basis of someone holding GC beliefs.

Google might help.

I wouldn't be surprised though. The anti semitism was entrenched and widespread and unchallenged for long time.

@SecondGentleman

The Labour CLPs that threw out women for having gender critical views are now legally the same as the Labour CLPs that refused to process applications from Jewish people.

Sorry for the OT tangent but I have to ask: Do you seriously believe that Labour CLPs refused to process applications from jewish people?

Yep, it states all of that. What you are failing to grasp is that this ruling establishes that it is unlawful to discriminate, harrass or victimise someone, on the grounds that they believe humans cannot change sex. That is it. Nobody here wants to do any of those things you’ve quoted. We want to be able to state our own beliefs, and discuss openly and fairly without having to use obfuscating language denying the material reality of sex, when we discuss issues that impact on women’s rights. That’s what we’re here for. And now it’s established that we can do that and not be discriminated against, harassed or victimised when we do.

Oh lordy. The disingenuousness from twitter has leaked over here now