Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

In that case I'll try again without the d word.

Some transgender people are fetishists, some have trauma, sexual absue, poor mental health or internalised homophobia.

Since we agree that these are the causes of trans identification, don't you think it would be better for those vulnerable people whose trans identification is due to trauma, sexual abuse, poor mental health or internalised homophobia to get help for those issues rather than encourage their belief that they need to alter their bodies?

Do you truly believe that allowing males to use women only spaces has no effect on the rights of women to have a single sex space?

You said that a man should be able to use the women's loos, and any woman who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the man would have to use another facility.

How can you suggest that this isn't an attack on the rights of women to have a single sex space?

Still waiting patiently to hear what rights transgender people don't have that the rest of us do.

If it is not having the right to use facilities of the opposite sex, then I'm in the same boat too.

Fucking hell. We're ALL oppressed 😭😭😭

Readers note: It is a misogynistic act to tell women that there are no conflicts with 'women's rights' when female single sex spaces are no longer as expected, single sex spaces but have become mixed sex spaces.

I think it is quite important to remember that when someone shows you who they are, you take notice.

Your questions no more apply to being transgender than they do being gay.

My questions about what transgender means?

Let's see.

What does gay mean? Answer: a person is gay if they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

What does transgender mean? Answer: a person is transgender if they are trying to escape past trauma by pretending to be the opposite sex.

Or: a person is transgender if they are gay but think it's wrong to be gay and it would be better if they pretended to be the opposite sex.

Or: a person is transgender if he is a man who is aroused by the thought himself as a woman.

I'd like you to explain what you think makes transgenderism real, rather than an escape mechanism, a fetish or in the case of many teenage girls, just another social contagion.

That's only true if you think transgender women are women. The essence of gender critical views is that transgender people are not women but men who prefer to adopt a "feminine" presentation. Their "identity" as women is a belief, not a matter of biological fact.

There is a conflict between gender critical beliefs and transgender rights. There's no conflict with women's rights.

I didn't report you or see your post.

You were quick on the report button there @DadJoke .

I assume that was the d word that got my post deleted.

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

Translation:

I mean, the man would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the man would have to use another facility.

But there's no conflict with women's rights.

@JanesLittleGirl

Really? She actually criticises the updated version. "The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t." Also, there is no evidence that Maya Forstater was proselytising (converting another to your beliefs) or that Helen Joyce is arguing that it is allowed.

She ALSO criticises the updated version. Helen choice describes "manifesting" as "letting others know you held them." Proselytizing was perhaps a bit strong, and Forstater won in part because she said she would not impose her gender critical views and respect peoples' pronouns.

The Forstater ETA set a very low bar for Grainger, and gender critical beliefs meet this threshold, as is lack of belief in structural racism and refusal to marry gay people.

This is my view based on two court cases and Forstarter. Margaret Jones won her appeal after she was dismissed for refusing to marry gay people, and Sean Corby's view that "critical race theory is divisive because it portrays white people as racist," was upheld, though he views on feminism were not.

A reasonable accommodation would be, for example, to provide a single user cubicle for anyone to use, including the transgender person.

No argument from me. This is exactly what my employer does. Although, on a previous thread, you posted that this would be unlawful.

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

However, every ET or court case is highly dependent on circumstances.
We need more case law on what is legitimate and proportionate, and what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination.

What is it with your obsession with "legitimate and proportionate"? This meaningless phrase is not used anywhere in the EA2010.

Specifically a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." with regard to people with the protected characterstic of gender reassignment being exluding from single-sex spaces. "Legitimate and proportionate" is just shorthand.

So, you might have a legimate aim (accommodating gender critical beliefs) but the means to do so might not be proportionate (stopping transgender people using the loo which matches their gender.)

More case law around this would be welcome.

Any employer that has concerns over employees' private SM content should place restrictions in the employment contract. Otherwise they have no control on how employees use it.

This is possible, but can be quiet difficult. If someone asked you to sign a contract stating that you wouldn't express gender critical views (eg trans women are not women) on your public social media, it could be quite hard to enforce.

@DadJoke sorry to hear that your daughter was ill and glad to hear that she is better.

Thanks for your extensive explanation of where we are on discrimination in the workplace. I do have a few issues:

She criticises A Practical Guide to Transgender Law, which was based on the law as it then stood before Forstater ETA, for reflecting the law as it stood before the Forstarter ETA. She then confuses "manifesting" a belief with being able to proselytize at work - an error in law. Obviously, when your beliefs come into conflict with work practices which impact your belief, then "manifestation" becomes important.

Really? She actually criticises the updated version. "The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t." Also, there is no evidence that Maya Forstater was proselytising (converting another to your beliefs) or that Helen Joyce is arguing that it is allowed.

*"In order to count as a “manifestation” within the meaning of Article 9, the act in question must be intimately linked to the religion or belief. An example would be an act of worship or devotion which forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form. However, the manifestation of religion or belief is not limited to such acts; the existence of a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the act and the underlying belief must be determined on the facts of each case. In particular, there is no requirement on the applicant to establish that he or she acted in fulfilment of a duty mandated by the religion in question"

It's the objectionable manifestation of the belief which can cause discrimination.

"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."*

I assume that this is a quote. Who or what are you quoting?

"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Again, who or what are you quoting?

*It's this last clause which is where the conflict arises.

The Forstater ETA set a very low bar for Grainger, and gender critical beliefs meet this threshold, as is lack of belief in structural racism and refusal to marry gay people.*

Is this a documented fact, your opinion or someone else's opinion?

"To establish that holding particular beliefs in respect of transgender persons per se falls foul of the Grainger test part V, it now appears to be necessary to shown that the belief is an equivalent of Nazism or totalitarianism, such that transgender persons should be not afforded the general rights and protections of other citizens"

Again, who or what are you quoting?

Employers are obliged to make reasonable accommodations for people with protected beliefs. Excluding a category of person who is permitted in space because of your beliefs would not be a reasonable accommodation. For example, forcing trans women to use men's bathrooms in the work place because another employee is gender critical would be discrimination against transgender people. A reasonable accommodation would be, for example, to provide a single user cubicle for anyone to use, including the transgender person.

No argument from me. This is exactly what my employer does. Although, on a previous thread, you posted that this would be unlawful.

No one can be forced to provide their pronouns at work, but not using the correct pronouns for colleagues and service users can be discriminatory (Mackereth). The fact that someone has a belief does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law.

can be discriminatory. This is not the same as will be discriminatory. DWP in the case of Mackereth reasonably required the use of preferred pronouns for their clients who would need to believe that their assessor had a respectful attitude towards them.

However, every ET or court case is highly dependent on circumstances.
We need more case law on what is legitimate and proportionate, and what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination.

What is it with your obsession with "legitimate and proportionate"? This meaningless phrase is not used anywhere in the EA2010.

This can put employers in a very difficult position. If, for example, your diversity policy supports LGBT people, and one of your employees in a private capacity pubically posts legal but homophobic or transphobic comments based on a protected belief, and people threaten to boycott your company, you are in somewhat of a bind.

Any employer that has concerns over employees' private SM content should place restrictions in the employment contract. Otherwise they have no control on how employees use it.

You've conflated belief with another protected characteristic - in this case gender reassignment, which is not a "belief" in the EqA.

No I haven't.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment just gives people the right not to be discriminated against because of their PC.

It doesn't give them the right to impose their belief that they have changed sex on other people who don't share their belief and force them to participate in that belief.

Holding a belief in gender ideology is not the same as having the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

@OldCrone I've given you my defintion. Your questions no more apply to being transgender than they do being gay.

Some transgender people are fetishists, some have trauma, sexual absue, poor mental health or internalised homophobia. So do cisgender people, gay people and disabled people, And no, social contagion does not cause people to become transgender.

It's back to the 70-80s with "the lesbians are converting our girls," which I suspect you may be old enough to remember. Gay people were painted as fetishists, their identities pathologised, every crime a gay person committed was treated as an examplar, and they were treated as perverts and paedophiles. People objected to sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with them .This anti-trans panic is no different, and the very same groups which have always targetted LGBT people are using ant-trans activists as useful idiots to implement their agenda.

You know full well what I mean by "correct pronouns" - this faux ignorance is tiresome

I think you mean incorrect pronouns, but I wanted to check. As I said, Newspeak can be very confusing.

You know full well what I mean by "correct pronouns" - this faux ignorance is tiresome.

"Quite. The fact that someone has a belief that they have changed sex does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law."

You've conflated belief with another protected characteristic - in this case gender reassignment, which is not a "belief" in the EqA. It's being gender critical which is a belief, which depends on what definition of sex you use, which is a question you have chosen not to answer in the context of the EqA. The defintion of gender reassignment in the EqA makes is clear that, legally, you can change sex.

But yes, gender critical beliefs which don't manifest as harrasment, discrimination or conflict with their employers' legitimate requirements are permitted.

I am not the person to inform you what "transgender" means. There are plenty of sources for that. The definition of gender reassignment in law will do just fine for this purpose. It's in the EqA.

That wasn't what I was asking. That's a legal definition. I want a social or medical definition. And I want to know specifically what you think it is. What condition do you believe trans identifying people have?

Is it being literally 'born in the wrong body'?

Is it a fetish?

Is it a reaction to trauma, sexual abuse, poor mental health or internalised homophobia?

Or is it, in many cases, social contagion?

Or if you don't think it's any of these, what exactly do you think it is? I'm asking you for your opinion.

Sex Matters will be surprised to hear that they are pushing Stonewall law!

I did not refer to Stonewall, looked at the original cases, the EHRC statutory guidance and the EqA and answered the question with regard to trans rights and discrimination I was posed on this thread.

No one can be forced to provide their pronouns at work, but not using the correct pronouns for colleagues and service users can be discriminatory (Mackereth).

By "correct pronouns" do you mean accurate pronouns referring to someone's sex or pronouns which someone would prefer you use instead, which do not accurately refer to their sex and are therefore not correct? Newspeak is so complicated sometimes.

The fact that someone has a belief does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law.

Quite. The fact that someone has a belief that they have changed sex does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law.

Let's see if Dadjoke has any comment at all about the WPATH report and what is defended in that document and what is not.

The same Dadjoke who says there's no problem with medically induced male secretions to that is supposedly breast milk when even the creeps at WPATH were saying it went too far and was unethical is STILL pushing Stonewall law desperately despite the legal ruling saying it's hokem that is unlawful.

is there anything Dadjoke wouldn't defend?

😂 Fancy seeing Stonewall law being pushed on here.

Hasn't seemed to work that well for Garden Court Chambers, Social Work England, Westminster Council, the Arts Council, the Open University, University of Essex, the Green party & a number of other organisations believing the lie that it's OK to remove women's rights and to harass, bully and discriminate against women and men for knowing that sex is binary and it's impossible to change sex. All of them have looked spectacularly incompetent & unpleasant in court displaying their illegal "beliefs".

But you crack on dadjoke with your beliefs, minimising the harm being done to children and vulnerable women.

@JanesLittleGirl Sorry, real life got in the way - my daughter was sick. She's OK now.

@OldCrone no, I am not the person to inform you what "transgender" means. There are plenty of sources for that. The definition of gender reassignment in law will do just fine for this purpose. It's in the EqA.

As an aside, if Harry Potter fan fiction turns you trans, Joyce is taking a big risk judging by the amount of research she is clearly doing. Totally worth it, though.

On to Joyce's article and her comments on discrimination.

There have been a number of cases recently where employers have taken a high-handed attitude against employees which do not take account of Forstater and really do not follow process. They relate more to discrimination against people with gender critical beliefs rather than undermining transgender people's rights in their work place.

She criticises A Practical Guide to Transgender Law, which was based on the law as it then stood before Forstater ETA, for reflecting the law as it stood before the Forstarter ETA. She then confuses "manifesting" a belief with being able to proselytize at work - an error in law. Obviously, when your beliefs come into conflict with work practices which impact your belief, then "manifestation" becomes important.

"In order to count as a “manifestation” within the meaning of Article 9, the act in question must be intimately linked to the religion or belief. An example would be an act of worship or devotion which forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form. However, the manifestation of religion or belief is not limited to such acts; the existence of a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the act and the underlying belief must be determined on the facts of each case. In particular, there is no requirement on the applicant to establish that he or she acted in fulfilment of a duty mandated by the religion in question"

It's the objectionable manifestation of the belief which can cause discrimination.

"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

It's this last clause which is where the conflict arises.

The Forstater ETA set a very low bar for Grainger, and gender critical beliefs meet this threshold, as is lack of belief in structural racism and refusal to marry gay people.

"To establish that holding particular beliefs in respect of transgender persons per se falls foul of the Grainger test part V, it now appears to be necessary to shown that the belief is an equivalent of Nazism or totalitarianism, such that transgender persons should be not afforded the general rights and protections of other citizens"

Employers are obliged to make reasonable accommodations for people with protected beliefs. Excluding a category of person who is permitted in space because of your beliefs would not be a reasonable accommodation. For example, forcing trans women to use men's bathrooms in the work place because another employee is gender critical would be discrimination against transgender people. A reasonable accommodation would be, for example, to provide a single user cubicle for anyone to use, including the transgender person.

No one can be forced to provide their pronouns at work, but not using the correct pronouns for colleagues and service users can be discriminatory (Mackereth). The fact that someone has a belief does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law.

From Forstater “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"

Forstater stated "she would respect people's identities and pronouns in a professional setting," and "She accepted, however, that her views should be kept out of the workplace unless there was a specific invitation to talk about it and that she wouldn’t bring other materials into the office" or the judgment might have been quite different. How beliefs manifest is restricted.

Sex Matters agrees "Avoiding creating a hostile environment for a transgender person at work or as a customer or student is clearly a legitimate aim for a policy."

However, every ET or court case is highly dependent on circumstances.
We need more case law on what is legitimate and proportionate, and what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination.

This can put employers in a very difficult position. If, for example, your diversity policy supports LGBT people, and one of your employees in a private capacity pubically posts legal but homophobic or transphobic comments based on a protected belief, and people threaten to boycott your company, you are in somewhat of a bind.

She describes it as both arousing and disgusting.

From what I remember, in proper context, she didn't mean it was arousing to her.

I think what this person did in taking photos of her phone, searching for the story online, uploading both photos and fuller screenshots of the story and setting the mob on her, was both stalky and hypocritical. In uploading the full story to social media, the snooper showed he didn't see it as illegal or even immoral - or he wouldn't have shared it.

As I understand it, the story was about the HP characters at sixth form age (e.g. 16 - 18). It's not what all the TRAs are pretending it is.