I think being gender critical might be a protected characteristic

[catgirl1976]

I was thinking about the fact that people are often loathe to speak out against aspects of the current transagenda for fear of losing their jobs.

Whilst gender identity is a protected characteristic, it occurred to me that so are beliefs

Something can be a philosophical belief if you strongly and genuinely believe in it and it concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour. The courts have said that the belief in man-made climate change and spiritualism are philosophical beliefs. But a political belief is not a philosophical belief.

The belief must also be acceptable in a democratic society and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

I am pretty sure that it would be very easy to argue that believing that, for example a woman is an adult human female fits this criteria. Ditto for believing that gender is simply a set of stereotypes or social roles.

I strongly and genuinely believe it
It concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour
I believe it is acceptable in a democratic society
It's not a political belief

Whilst TRAs might argue that it conflicts with their fundamental beliefs it doesn't conflict with their fundamental rights - they can still believe what they like, and until self ID is law then there's no infringement on rights here as far as I can see. Trans people have the right to present how they wish and (rightly) not suffer any discrimination but someone else having a conflicting belief does not impact any fundamental rights (unless they treat them unfairly on the basis of them being trans). Disagreeing with someone is not unfair treatment. Obviously if you're being cunty to someone at work you probably deserve to get fired, but if you are politely arguing on social media that you don't think transwomen are biologically female or you say in a meeting 'Hang on Sue, shouldn't that form say 'sex' not 'gender' then is it legal for people to be losing their jobs on this basis?

Where people are threatened with losing their jobs or do lose their jobs for 'transphobia' I think the organisations in question are potentially breaching the Equality Act and are guilty of discrimination.

I'm not a legal person but I was musing on this and I'd be interested to see how it played out at a tribunal. I think the other party would be forced to provide an alternative definition of 'woman' for a start and I'm not sure 'anyone who identifies as a woman' would stand up to legal scrutiny.

Just wondered if any one had a view. I'm sort of thinking out loud here. I see so often people saying 'I can't speak up at work as I would lose my job' so I'm wondering, how legal is it to dismiss someone because they are gender critical / don't believe transwomen are biologically women.

I think there's an interesting time for the courts and tribunal services coming up in any case.

I may be over-simplifying but how is your narrative any different than, say, a right supremacist having a belief that non-whites races are inferior biologically? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I came into this thread out of curiosity. I don't know enough about the subject but on a surface level have never understood why feminists and trans women may be in conflict

It would be as unworkable as trying to ban another religion: a better analogy would be to say that Christianity should be protected over Islam or Judaism.

Gender critical feminist theory is a particular theory of feminism - but not the only theory: there are also kyriarchal, intersectional and queer theories of feminism: so in the same way that you have Catholic Christians, Protestants, Anglicans, Methodists etc.

To give it a protected status would be to elevate beyond what it is. (And it is also deeply political - our lives are political, so).

All the different religions are already protected under this legislation. It doesn't elevate one above the other. It just gives them all equal status.

I think a good analogy is Judaism and anti-Semitism. I believe that Jewish people should be protected from discrimination and violence. I do not however believe that they are God's chosen people on Earth - I don't even believe in God. No Jewish person has ever tried to force me to affirm that belief or said that I am literally killing them if I do not.

I also believe that trans people should be protected from discrimination and violence. I do not believe that biological males are women or that gender/ladybrains exist except as an oppressive social construct. I should not be forced to affirm their belief and deny my own.

"All the different religions are already protected under this legislation. It doesn't elevate one above the other. It just gives them all equal status."

But what if you were to give protected status to one, over all the others? To me, that is what giving gender critical theory would do - given that there are other theories of feminism.

Feminism ≠ only gender critical theory.

All feminist theories/beliefs do potentially have protection under this legislation. OP isn't asking for the law to be changed to include being gender critical but that it could already be protected under existing legislation - as could other feminist beliefs if they meet the criteria set out in legislation (which is stated in the original post).

Whether these beliefs do meet the criteria would only be tested if a person with a gender critical (or alternative feminist) belief took a case to court

But what if you were to give protected status to one, over all the others?

That's not what the OP is suggesting.

She is suggesting that in a situation where someone's job was threatened because they expressed gender critical beliefs, that they would be protected from discrimination under the protected characteristic of 'Religion or belief' in the same way that expression of any other religious or non-political belief would be.

The belief that a woman is an adult human female is not just a feminist belief. It's a belief shared by people of all political persuasions and is very widely held outside of a few internet bubbles and student socs. I'd say it's a non-political belief because of that, at least as much as a belief in man-made climate change.

I'm not sure how practical it would be to bring a case though tbh. Discrimination in the workplace is widespread (especially pregnancy and maternity, and disability discrimination). Very few people see justice even when they have a straightforward case and most don't actually get their jobs back (it would make for a very awkward working environment). They might get some compensation and a reputation as a trouble maker with future prospective employers.

Perhaps it would therefore need to be 'feminism' (as an umbrella term) protected?

At the end of the day, feminism is a political theory in any event, so it would never come to pass, but I do see where you are coming from.

Other posters have explained it far better than my initial OP

I am not suggesting anything is changed or specifically protected by law, but that it potentially already is and if someone was to be fired for saying, for example, I don't believe Trans Women are biological women they might have a case for discrimination under the law as it stands.

I don't think that is a 'feminist' belief, more a scientific fact but I think it falls under the current criteria for a protected belief. Potentially. As a PP says this would only be tested in a real case or tribunal. Which is not a road many people would happily go down being a nightmare to prove, expensive, drawn out etc.

Natalies85
I may be over-simplifying but how is your narrative any different than, say, a right supremacist having a belief that non-whites races are inferior biologically?

Thats not over simplifying, its completely missing the point. We arent talking about either sex being superior or inferior.

Race and religion are protected characteristics. Women dont exclude women of colour, we include them. To be able to participate in public life, many women need women only spaces and services. Its racist to tell them to get over themselves and share with men.

But you don't have to be a feminist to be gender critical - sure, feminist analysis has been the major contributor, but you can be gender critical without being a feminist, therefore it can be a protected belief without pitting it against any feminism.

Mind you, I would assume that being a feminist is also protected.