In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

Children cannot get a GRC so will not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The protected characteristic is broader than that:

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would cover a child who was taking puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Maybe a name change and a hairstyle would not be enough though.

It must be awful when reality bites you on the arse.

Children cannot get a GRC so will not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

Community note:
Certain posters (mentioning no names) display the quality of their thinking by the nature of their comments & occasionally reflected in their user names. Posters should be aware (as Mumsnet regularly remind us) that people may not be who they claim to be online.
Always worth looking for a persistent anti women bias, a disregard for safeguarding children & the rights of women to privacy from men, in the posts of those who rock up on this feminist women's board claiming levels of "expertise".

Have a wonderful women centred weekend wims and ignore the pigeons who descend in the hope of ruffling feathers. 😘😘

'In the previous guidance, the EHRC stated it would be discriminatory – under the Equality Act’s protected characteristic of gender reassignment – to refer to a trans pupil using their deadname or former pronouns.

In the update, the EHRC removed this section entirely, suggesting that the watchdog no longer sees misgendering or deadnaming as discriminatory.'

All I can find is that the EHRC have removed their guideline on schools that said that misgendering was discriminatory.

Perhaps there will be clarification in due course.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/23/ehrc-guidance-trans-misgendering-pupils-schools/

That's my point. Even if it's clearly obvious that you are refusing to play the pronoun game is non compliance harassment ? Even if you don't deadname or misgender with wrong pronouns? Can you be compelled to use incongruent pronouns against your own beliefs?

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/pronouns/

I'd be interested to know too. In some circumstances I'd try to avoid using pronouns at all, but that could look a bit obvious.

It depends.

For that matter neither is ' ArabellaScott said it on Mumsnet'.

Read the source, the Equality Act, official guidance, consult a solicitor.

If a new colleague started who went by a female name and used female pronouns but was obviously a man would it be OK for me to use he/him etc due to my protected gender critical beliefs?

If anyone is unsure about the ins and outs I suggest checking up on the EHRC website, reading SexMatters' website, or consulting a professional with expertise in the area.

'Dadjoke said it on Mumsnet' is not a sensible position to base HR decisions - or any decisions- on.

I think in the future though there will eventually be a carve out for non believers that we can conscientiously object to using wrong sex pronouns, FWIW.

As ever, it depends on the context of each individual situation.

It depends and always has depended on the circumstances.

Sorry I haven't been following this case closely but does this new ruling mean that we can't be disciplined if we misgender someone in the workplace?

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic only gender reassignment. Given that it is also possible to exclude someone with a grc from same sex facilities when proportionate to meet a legitimate aim let alone someone without a grc I assume you agree that requiring females to share spaces with the opposite sex on the basis of gender identity could be harassment? Additionally, given that some religions and cultures do not permit the mixing of sexes in certain circumstances how do you ensure you avoid indirect discrimination on the basis of race or religion if you were to require that only gender and not sex is relevant?
Also as gender identity is not protected can a non-binary person really claim discrimination or harassment if a GC person expresses a contrary view?

Gosh isn’t it complex? It’s almost as if females have agency and rights all of their own that don’t derive from the world view of certain males.

The court cases are clear, you cannot misrepresent the law to justify silencing women who want their rights respected.

I know, but the point is that he has an agenda here and if women take what he says as true it might prevent them from complaining about this.

Nothing he says has a basis in fact.

Dadjoke you appear to be suggesting that if a woman complains persistently about women's toilets at work being used by a male she would be guilty of harassment.

Do you have a source for that please as I do not believe this to have any basis in fact?

Justin really did sound shocked this morning. I wasn't paying the radio much attention until the change in tone. Maybe change is afoot at the Grauniad ( the UK bit, anyway)?

Apart from Emma Barnett's interview with Jo Phoenix this week I don't recall hearing/reading anything on the Beeb about this case or the madness of the ERCC tribunal evidence.

The ruling doesn't let her do that, it's specifically mentioned that she can't.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
But what if Maya Forstater breaks into my house and sellotapes my eyelids shut while I'm asleep, and when I wake up I think I'm blind? Does the ruling let her do that? Because if it does it's a travesty of justice!!!!!! What is the world coming to?!?!?!?!?!

And calling women who express gender critical beliefs ‘bigots’ has now been shown to be discriminatory and to constitute harassment. So you
might want to keep your misogynistic rhetoric to a minimum now. Do keep up.