Now that gender critical beliefs are a protected philosophical belief

Pumpkinspicewoman is exactly right though - the judgement states (on page 4 - their bold)

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of
either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.
b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or
discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given
case.
c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against
discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the
protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to
apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics
that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.
d. This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able
to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would continue to be
liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and
discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment.

in light of the fact that accepting humans cannot change sex is protected belief under the EA, any posts recognising that male people are male, are not “undermining civil debate”, “belittling an individual” nor a “personal attack”, they are simply stating material reality according to that poster’s protected beliefs. Stating a male person is male has no value judgment or malice to it, either way; we believe, it simply is, and that sex matters when discussing women’s rights, which is what we come here to do.

That would make a refreshing change. I'd also like to see the unfairly banned women invited back.

That's not true.

What's been achieved is far more important than that.

That holding GC beliefs means you cannot be discriminated against.

Whatever happens in the Tribunal re-run doesn't change that.

You've failed to understand the significance of the ruling or are deliberately trying to minimise its importance.

Neither options serve you well.

So I don't know if their EA employment type laws differ.

They are about to change the protected characteristics for their hate crime law though.

Tibtom a lot of laws are different in England and Wales, and Scotland, and NI.

They have different verdicts in courts and stuff as well (not proven).

Except none of that is true. Ms Forstater has won the right to a new tribunal. Full stop.

Pronouns.
Received an email from "Mary" yesterday. Letting me know 'she/her'. As if I couldn't possibly guess.

I came on to say pronouns too. I'm waiting for that to come my way at work.

How about MNHQ revisiting this “clarification” in the posting guidelines:

Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person', or for including them as part of the male population?
We'll continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, taking tone and context into account. We'd be unlikely to delete if it's said in the context of a civil discussion of biology.
If it’s used on principle rather than to express a specific point, we’d likely delete it on the basis that it undermines civil debate.
If it's said with the apparent intention of belittling an individual, we'd likely take the view that had progressed beyond a discussion of facts/biology and towards a personal attack

That in light of the fact that accepting humans cannot change sex is protected belief under the EA, any posts recognising that male people are male, are not “undermining civil debate”, “belittling an individual” nor a “personal attack”, they are simply stating material reality according to that poster’s protected beliefs. Stating a male person is male has no value judgment or malice to it, either way; we believe, it simply is, and that sex matters when discussing women’s rights, which is what we come here to do.

It seems Edinburgh Council pay little regard to freedom of belief: www.scottishlegal.com/article/edinburgh-council-acted-unlawfully-in-discriminating-against-christian-organisation

It's an English case so I think probably nothing? They have their own laws around this stuff.

Of course it might well encourage Scots to bring their own legal challenges.

That's my guess, I don't actually know.

What does this mean for Scotland and the HCB?

Any organisation who call us Transphobic for stating biological facts, are breaking the law.

Here it is. The irony that The Guardian probably thinks this is acceptable, yet women objecting to pretending the Emperor has new clothes are vilified.

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/parents-win-fight-to-secure-secular-school-education

It's such an important ruling.
There was a story in the last couple of years about parents winning a ruling against a school that insisted on children attending religious CofE assemblies. I thought at the time, how come GCs don't have the right to opt out of things that go against our beliefs.

Excellent point, thank you.

My VERY wokey union will get very sniffy though. I'd challenge them to represent me.

Or better still ask for compensation because the company broke the law in discriminating against you...

Also....will those of us suffering employment formal procedures for saying 'TWANW' be able to reasonably apply to have disciplinary measures rescinded? We didn't break any law.

I'm going to risk a deletion to say can we please invite Lang back now?

I suppose it's this idea that in scientific understanding things can change etc

But surely mammals being two sexes is just utterly totally obvious. Otherwise farming, breeding animals, human babies etc etc would all be good guesses iyswim

It won't be possible to use pronoun rounds as a way of outing GC women.

In fact, if there's any suspicion that the pronoun round might lead to any adverse treatment of those not participating, then it'll be discriminatory.

Just as if you had a workplace prayer meeting which everyone was 'encouraged' to attend.