Why does a contrary belief have to be proved?

[JellySlice]

Regarding Maya's and Katie's (Agnes? Girl Guiding) legal battles, why do they have to prove a belief in Gender Critical Feminism, and consequently defend that it is a belief worthy of respect? Doesn't the Equalities Act protect absence of belief as part of protecting belief?

I don't think I can explain this well enough but I don't understand why they have to prove a case for 'gender critical' belief at all because its already in the EA.

To start with, The Equality Act itself recognises the term 'sex', it is the accepted definition for a protected characteristic. It also recognises the term 'gender'. So the EA itself accepts that sex does not equal gender.

Next, an employer can't legally insist a female employee performs gender - by telling her to wear heels or make up. Its discriminatory.
So why is this suddenly an esoteric belief that has to be defended? Its just 'equality' by another name.

I wondered this at the time. Katie posted somewhere about it, and it's possible Maya's blog covers it too. I'll see if I can find them.

It's "belief" that is a protected characteristic, not absence of belief.

Non belief or a lack of belief is also covered by the act.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/religion-or-belief-discrimination

I don't understand why believing that biological sex is real and women and men exist is even "Feminist" isn't it just basic scientific fact and what our health system is based on? I am not too keen on the idea that this is some "niche" belief. Can't they just say "I believe what everyone believed until a bunch of looney postmodern bollocks came along, m'lud?"

Absence of belief is a protected characteristic. It is even stated that atheism qualifies as a belief, though I'm not clear whether atheism is a belief (that god does not exist), or a lack of belief (that god exists).

I do not believe that biological sex is real. The reality of biological sex is provable fact, like 'water is wet' or 'it gets dark at night'. I do not understand why anyone should have to defend a belief that biological sex is real.

I don't understand why believing that biological sex is real and women and men exist is even "Feminist" isn't it just basic scientific fact and what our health system is based on? I am not too keen on the idea that this is some "niche" belief. Can't they just say "I believe what everyone believed until a bunch of looney postmodern bollocks came along, m'lud?"

No idea how that would go down in court , but it's a very good point.
This so-called debate could be cut shorter by several years if people who don't believe in gender ideology and queer theory stopped humouring the believers and using their language.

I do not believe that biological sex is real. The reality of biological sex is provable fact, like 'water is wet' or 'it gets dark at night'.

I have seen TRAs use this to fight their corner. Eg: There is very little academic research which conclusively proves that women are women, therefore you are wrong to assume that women are women.

When you put it like that OP, it does seem rather obvious. How can it be necessary to defend the knowledge/ possession/ awareness of biological facts? They are just facts. The waters have been extremely muddied here! Maybe it has caught the lawyers short because no one has challenged actual incontrovertible facts in that way before? I guess the existence of GRCs creates some confusion on a legal front but by its existence confirms that biological sex is real.

It's because the act doesn't specify what counts as a 'belief' and in order to make sense of the act the judiciary have had to apply their own criteria of what should be considered as a 'belief' for the purposes of the law.

It annoys me too that they add the "feminist" on to try to make it a "belief" of a few mean women, rather than accepted fact that the human race has only 2 sexes and we cannot change from one to the other.

What I read about this is that Maya had no alternative ways of suing except by using the belief argument. It's not the best of fits with the details of the case.

An interesting thread...

What I read about this is that Maya had no alternative ways of suing except by using the belief argument.

Yes, Maya explained it well in one of her updates, I think.
My previous comment wasn't aimed at Katie or Maya, btw, or anyone who is having to fight this in the courts.
I just think it's important to use clear language and state facts as facts whenever possible. For example, all women are 'natal' women, so why use that word at all? Or words like 'male-bodied' to say male/man?

Maybe it has caught the lawyers short because no one has challenged actual incontrovertible facts in that way before

Iirc this was part of it.

What I read about this is that Maya had no alternative ways of suing except by using the belief argument.

But why is the absence of belief argument not valid?

What is the phrase? "A belief worthy of respect in a civilised society" - something like that. Has the trans ideology had to prove that their belief is worthy of respect in a civilised society? Presumably to a certain extent this had been done, hence the GRA. But does this cover all forms of trans (clearly Stonewall thinks it does)? Should AGP men and part-time cross-dressers have to prove that their 'belief' is worthy of respect in a civilised society?

And if a belief is worthy of respect in a civilised society, does that over-ride the protected characteristic of lack of belief?

Christianity is considered a belief worthy of respect in a civilised society, as are Judaism and atheism. But a Christian faith school requiring its Jewish and atheist pupils to recite The Lord's Prayer in assembly would be breaking the law. Neither would have to prove their belief nor their unbelief.

Are body-modification and self-harming beliefs worthy of respect in a civilised society? (I'd say possibly yes, because we have bodily autonomy. But I would definitely be an unbeliever.)

But is colluding in self-harming a belief worthy of respect in a civilised society?

Self-harming gives temporary relief to emotional distress, at the cost of causing lasting harm. Taking puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones has the same effect. So is believing that children should be prescribed them a belief worthy of respect in a civilised society?

It shows how dangerous this ideology has become, how insidious it is and what a dangerous place we are in as a society if we keep allowing it to take hold.
No one 'believes' in biological sex. They know it. We all know it. We all know we all know it. Animals and babies know it. Even those who profess not to know, who talk about clownfish and how 'sex is more complicated than we ever realised' know it - because you can sure as hell bet they are in no way confused as to which one of them takes the birth control pills and which one wears the condom.

Belief and knowledge are two completely different things. One is defined by the absence of proof, the other comes when the proof is irrefutable. No one wastes their time 'believing' in what they have irrefutable proof for. I don't 'believe' in my sofa. I know it's there because I am sitting on it.

Fair enough, knowledge should be tested every now again to check we didn't get it wrong, but I think biological sex has robustly proven itself to be consistently true over the course of all the aeons the planet has had sexually dimorphic species. So it's safe to say, should we test it again, we will get the same result.

That we can be at a place where women have to go to court to try and prove that something that is plainly and demonstrably true - that everybody knows, has always known and will always know - is a 'belief' and furthermore one 'worthy of respect' shows what an Orwellian rabbit hole of a nightmare the trans ideology has dragged us into.

I wonder what other demonstrably true scientific facts will be up for grabs next?

And if the only way to legally challenge this assault on reality is to pretend that reality is a 'belief worthy of respect' then we have a problem in our legal system. Though of course this has only become a problem because 20 years ago no one would ever have thought scientific reality would need defending in a court of a law, so we have no laws ready to defend what should have been unassailable.

It's terrifying to think they might lose because a judge will want to 'be kind*'. Reality has no business being kind - it just is. And the law has no business in being kind - it needs to be fair, it needs to be just, it needs to reflect reality - but 'kind'? Nope. It's terrifying to think that actual laws will be ignored in a court of law in this ridiculous pursuit of 'kindness'. What an all mighty mess there will be to sort out when this madness is finally over.

*Not 'kind' to women of course. They don't matter.

Excellent post pretzels