To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

Tribunal held her beliefs did not amount to a 'philosophical belief'.

Absolutely Aridane. Most people commenting on here and twitter seem to miss this entirely. (Ostensibly). That’s what the judgement is about. Not whether you can say ‘sex is real’.

It’s so disingenuous. It was a test case for getting ‘gender critical’ on the same footing as a religion. It would then pave the way for allowing people to ignore the GRA and to deliberately misgender people.

But even then it’s not that simple is it, cf gay cake-gate.

Good job the judge was well on to this.

Typo on my previous post - male dammit. It's hurty male feelz, not hurty US postal system...

Tribunal held her beliefs did not amount to a 'philosophical belief'.

Absolutely Aridane. Most people commenting on here and twitter seem to miss this entirely. (Ostensibly). That’s what the judgement is about. Not whether you can say ‘sex is real’.

But her belief is that sex is real.

And it is real.

Many people are having difficulty, because this is not a belief. It's a fact.

She had to phrase it as a belief. And the judge has decided that a fact cannot be upheld on the basis that it's offensive.

He has to call it a philosophical belief, because that's the basis on which she brought the claim. But it's a fact. He is saying the facts are offensive.

Yes thanks, we all know that the tribunal held her beliefs did not amount to a philosophical belief - her beliefs which are clearly and undeniably grounded in scientific fact. That’s precisely what’s so outrageous. The tribunal judge substituted his own beliefs for hers. This will be successfully appealed. Not sure what the relevance is of the gay cake case in the context in which you raise it? The Supreme Court in that case said the bakers did not have to make a cake with a slogan on it that was contrary to their own beliefs?

I think it's misleading to even call them beliefs. They're facts that she is affirming. I don't 'believe' the world is round. It's a fact.

So far as my hypotherical cleaner who retweets JKR and tells me she doesn't think women can change into men goes, when considering my actual transmasc daughter...so what ? Her beliefs don't make my daughter unsafe. I am not paying her to have any particular beliefs. She isn't inciting violence. Her beliefs don't impact on her ability to vacuum under my lounge.

But her beliefs might make your daughter feel uncomfortable, which would suggest it isn't a good fit. If I had a cleaner (a fantasy I like to indulge in from time to time) who tweeted MRA supporting or anti-abortion views I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable, and if their contract came up for renewal I would consider not renewing.

If it was an employee I had to work with and talk to this would be more pertinent, if he was vocal about his views this would inevitably have an impact on our working relationship.

It is generally accepted that posting potentially controversial opinions on twitter or facebook isn't a good move professionally. Potential employers look at social media.

I don’t think it is generally controversial to state what sex Gregor Murray is. We all know what their sex is. So do they. We are having to have a discussion about whether it’s controversial because we are having to pretend that sex isn’t real whereas the entire world knows it is.

It was a test case for getting ‘gender critical’ on the same footing as a religion

Not really. It would come under philosophical belief not religious belief. They are distinct. I don’t think being anti-fox hunting is equivalent to a religious belief, but it is capable of being protected under the Equality Act.

Her belief is that sex is real and immutable. Misgendering etc, whatever your views on it (personally I am opposed to it) is a manifestation of that belief, and I think the judge has somewhat conflated the two in his judgment.

I really don't understand now. 'I don't think it is true but I have spent ten pages defending attacks on someone who doesn't think someone else should be fired for saying it isn't true. Which is what I believe (along with circa 95% of the British public and 100% (rounded) of the rest of the world))'

Is it too early for ?

"I reserve the right to misgender individuals who have forfeited their right to courtesy through criminal conduct" - reasonable statement.

"I reserve the right to misgender individuals" - unreasonable statement.

But isn't there a problem with there being a sliding moral scale of who and who isn't worthy of their delusions being pandered to? What kind of 'criminal conduct' are we talking here? Only violence against women? Or would we include fraud and the like as well?

What if people aren't courteous towards women? Paris Lees for example pretty regularly refers to women who are concerned about their rights as 'bastards' and 'arseholes' on Twitter. Why should I then be courteous towards Paris and refer to them as 'she'?

But her belief is that sex is real.

Of course it’s real. That doesn’t mean it’s ok to disregard law relating to the protected characteristics just because you have different views.

I don’t believe one single person sitting in that tribunal has any doubt that sex is real. That isn’t what it’s about. I would be surprised if you didn’t know that. You’re a clever person.

Not sure that most people supporting JKR know though. Sleight of hand, yes.

Para 91 Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through a refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men and trans men by insisting they are women.

Nearly 2000 people have voted!

Yes thanks, we all know that the tribunal held her beliefs did not amount to a philosophical belief

No “we” do not all know that.

The tribunal judge substituted his own beliefs for hers.

He correctly interpreted the law, and the spirit of the law.

Not sure what the relevance is of the gay cake case in the context in which you raise it?

It’s an example of where 2 rights come in to conflict. The bakers could refuse because of the slogan. It wouldn’t be lawful to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. This case was trying to get GRA this denial on the same footing as ‘belief’.

Also, employers should have the right to dismiss people whose views they find morally abhorrent and who express those views publicly.

She was working with a think tank on sex-based rights. Literally being paid for her thoughts on the sexes. She lost her income to the Thought Police.

Go JKR, and I too stand with Maya.

. If I had a cleaner (a fantasy I like to indulge in from time to time) who tweeted MRA supporting or anti-abortion views I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable, and if their contract came up for renewal I would consider not renewing

How the heck would I even know my cleaner's views on abortion outside of work hours, unless I decided to stalk my cleaner's social media ?

Being pro or anti choice does not impact on the job of cleaning in any way, shape or form. If my cleaner spent her free time writing about how she considers abortion to be a sin, that's her business. My business is 'does she turn up on time, does she clean efficiently and effectively, am I pleased with the cleaning job she does ?' If yes, what moral right do I have to let her go for simply disagreeing with me on a social issue ?

(Now I am also really wishing I had this hypothetical cleaner!)

I don’t think Pippa Bunce has a GRC and therefore protected characteristics doesn’t come into it. Don’t know if Gregor Murray does but they are clearly not making much effort to abide by the requirements of the GRC if they do.

And why is ‘causing harassment to transwomen’ by virtue of the belief I hold prioritised over causing harassment to women by claiming that our understanding of ourselves is wrong, taking our prizes, entering our toilets and dressing up as a parody of us ?

OK, someone talk to me about this fact/belief thing.

Is it now only the religious who are free from compelled speech? The bakers weren't ultimately compelled to express something that impacted on their beliefs and the dignity we grant to those beliefs, but secular women have no such protection ?

JanesKettle yes, it's an interesting bind isn't it? Women are not a legally protected class, and secular women are certainly not.

Perhaps we should establish a legal religion if that's the only way to enforce any kind of protection from this constant attack of our rights & bodies. I would love to see every catcall, grope, and intrusion into women's spaces deemed a hate crime.

If anyone wealthy enough to afford a cleaner is also petty enough to stalk that cleaner's social media or otherwise attempt to ferret out her political opinions in order to decide whether or not to sack her then frankly I'm not convinced it's the cleaner whose character is problematic in that scenario.

It's so emblematic of genderism as a whole though, petty little dictators relishing being able to wield power over others.

Binterested you can't get a GRC for being non-binary, I am 99% sure, which is what GM claims to be.
If it causes offence and harasses trans people to say things like "trans women are still men" how does that fit with the fact that there are trans women who would say and believe exactly the same thing?

Dutch didn't some rad fems establish a religion in the US, or am I misremembering?

Women certainly seem to have been left out in the cold.

Kittens hear hear.

Imagine sacking one's cleaning lady because you didn't like her politics!

how does that fit with the fact that there are trans women who would say and believe exactly the same thing

Apparently they don an invisibility cloak the moment they speak out, or rather their erstwhile comrades forcible bundle them up in one in the hopes that nobody will notice what they're saying.

Imagine sacking one's cleaning lady because you didn't like her politics!

The butler was thoroughly impertinent too! Just can't get the staff these days, etc.