We can define "Gender Critical" however we like in this thread but in terms of protection from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, "Gender Critical Belief" is defined in UK law.
The reason that it is called "Gender Critical Belief" is because that is the term Maya Forstater used in her Witness Statement when taking her case for unfair discrimination to an Employment Tribunal. Perhaps Maya used this term because it was already widely used to contrast with what Maya refers to as "Gender Identity Belief", which she lacks?
I like some of the other terms that have been suggested in this thread. In so far as their meanings coincide exactly with how "Gender Critical Belief" is defined in law we could just say, "X Belief, also known as Gender Critical Belief".
However, to use very different definitions of "Gender Critical Belief" could cause confusion and possibly difficulties because it is a particular definition of "Gender Critical Belief" that is a protected belief under the EA2010.
I think these are the most relevant parts of Maya's Witness Statement and the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
Witness Statement - On the question of belief
In the case of MS MAYA FORSTATER and CGD Europe -and- CGD EUROPE (1) CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT (2) MASOOD AHMED (3) at the London Central Employment Tribunal
23 Oct 2019
(Extracts: some bolding as in the original, some bolding mine)
- This statement sets out my underlying belief (“gender critical belief”) as well as the belief that some people subscribe to but which I do not share (“gender identity belief”).
GENDER CRITICAL BELIEF
- As outlined in paragraph 67 of the Amended Particulars of my Claim, I believe the following:
(A) “Sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”.
(B) Being female is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.
(C) Sex matters.
(D) In particular it is important it is important to be able to talk about sex in order to take action against the discrimination, violence and oppression that still affect women and girls because they were born female.
GENDER IDENTITY BELIEF
Gender identity belief is a system of belief about sex and gender which I do not share
(Maya details the characteristics of this belief - see link)
-
I do not share this belief. But I believe it meets the conditions for being a protected belief.
-
It satisfies the criteria in Grainger v Nicholson:
(1) It is genuinely held
(See link for details)
(2) It is a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
(See link for details)
(3) It is a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(See link for details)
(4) It demonstrates cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance
(See link for details)
(5) It is worthy of respect in a democratic society, is compatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others.
(See link for details)
-
People who believe that everyone has an internal gender identity, and that this, rather than facts about their body, is what makes them male or female, may feel they themselves should therefore be comfortable undressing, washing, receiving personal care, being intimately searched or sharing sleeping accommodation with people of the opposite sex who declare that they have the same gender identity.
-
What I believe is not worthy of respect is the further belief that others who do not share this belief (including children) should be compelled to pretend that they do share it — for example in practical terms that they must not refer to a person’s actual sex in any circumstance, that they can be compelled to refer to someone with pronouns which relate to the opposite sex than the one they really are, that crimes committed by men should be recorded as being committed by women, that individuals must undress, wash, sleep or receive personal care in “single sex” spaces which include members of the opposite sex, that women escaping or recovering from male violence cannot be given the security of a female only shelter or support service, or that people and organisations should ignore a person’s sex as a risk factor where it is relevant (such as in relation to healthcare, pregnancy or blood donation).
-
In short, I would argue that the belief in gender identity per se is worthy of respect in a democratic society and does not infringe the rights of others per se. However, where it is taken to a further stage of requiring that everyone else share or pretend to share in this belief, I believe it is not compatible with the rights and freedoms of others, in particular the rights of women and girls.
Conclusion
152. Some people believe that what makes a woman is the fact of female biology (“gender critical belief”) Some people believe it is a sense of innate gender identity (“gender identity belief”).
https://www.forstater.com/on-the-question-of-belief/
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Appeal No. UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
Handed down on 10 June 2021
MAYA FORSTATER vs (1) CGD EUROPE (2) CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT (3) MASOOD AHMED
INTERVENORS: (1) INDEX ON CENSORSHIP (2) EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
(Extracts: some bolding as in the original, some bolding mine)
- The Claimant had also put her claim in her ET1 on the alternative basis of a lack of belief. The belief that she did not subscribe to was described by the Tribunal as follows at para 92 of the Judgment:
“...everyone has a gender which may be different to their sex at birth and which effectively trumps sex so that trans men are men and transwomen are women”
- We refer to this as the “gender identity belief”. The Claimant accepted that the gender identity belief was a philosophical belief qualifying for protection under s.10, EqA.
Does the Claimant’s belief fall within s.10 EqA?
-
On a proper application of Grainger V, as analysed above, it seems to us that the only possible conclusion is that the Claimant’s belief does fall within s.10, EqA.
-
a widely shared belief demands particular care before it can be condemned as being not worthy of respect in a democratic society.
-
the Claimant’s belief that sex is immutable and binary is, as the Tribunal itself correctly concluded, consistent with the law . . .
-
Where a belief or a major tenet of it appears to be in accordance with the law of the land, then it is all the more jarring that it should be declared as one not worthy of respect in a democratic society. . . . the position under the common law as to the immutability of sex remains the same; and it would be a matter for Parliament, not a court or tribunal considering whether a belief is protected under s.10, EqA, to declare otherwise.
-
becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex.
117. In relation to the preliminary issue of whether the Claimant’s belief falls within s.10, EqA, we substitute a finding that it does.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf?ref=forstater.com