How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

"the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law."

This confuses me. So if the law was different these cases would have gone the same way...? What point is he making?

Many of the links are to debunked TRA propaganda as well. Pink News, "Owl"'s 2017 article in the Independent that Dr Nic Williams complained about and got them to post a retraction in part.

He seems to be some sort of regular TV pundit and commentator. How can he see women's rights, and freedom of speech in such a backwards way?

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/parliaments-privileges-committee-acquits-john-nicolson-mp/

Jo Cherry's junior counsel at one point.

And recently on behalf of John Nicolson.

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/dr-sam-fowles/

That was written by a barrister 😬

If this really is a barrister, you’ve got to wonder how they’re still getting work 🙄

The article recognises that employers have allowed people to bully and harass those with GC views, but there are no cases where individuals have been harassed for GI views.

Actually, this is a good summary of how GC people behave compared with TRA extremists - even in the relatively well-disciplined world of work (no barbed-wire baseball bats allowed!)

@drhf "People with gender critical beliefs are not allowed “to publicly attack trans people”. They are allowed to express their belief that sex is immutable and important."
Yeah but beliefs are transphobic and that's literal violence innit?

GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority

This translates as: Subjected to illegal campaigns of sustained harassment and bullying.

This guy and the truth are strangers, it would seem. I wonder if he got his law degree from one of those 6 week correspondence courses?

In all of the above cases, the employers made errors.

This sentence sums it up. Do better.

The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues.

I hope the author can evidence that bold claim. 'Demonise transpeople' - do me a favour, they're teflon.

That is an impressively dumb article for a barrister. Protecting people from being harassed at work isn't a 'legal loophole', it's part of the primary function of that legislation.

The only reason it 'appears trans people don't have the same protection' is because no one has been harassed for supporting self ID. Reading even a brief summary of the EA2010 make the author aware that Trans people have more explicit protection than GC feminist in the act.

i have good news for the author of the article. He states:
These highlight a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

He will be relieved to hear that none of these things are true.

People with gender critical beliefs are not allowed “to publicly attack trans people”. They are allowed to express their belief that sex is immutable and important.

It is not the case that trans people are “without equivalent protection”. People with the belief that gender identities trump biological sex are also allowed to express that belief in exactly the same way. This has yet to be the basis of legal proceedings because nobody has alleged discrimination of that kind. If anyone loses their job for expressing the belief that trans women are women, they will have an excellent case.

This person is a barrister? I have seen better posts from TRAs on this forum than in that article. He doesn’t seem very bright at all.

Good to know, thanks.