They gave an example that if an atheist made constant comments to a religious individual about 'seeing fairy unicorns' then that might be harrasment.
Yes, they clearly stated the difference between discussing beliefs in a respectful way and harassing someone.
Relevent tweets:
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
Last general proposition is that even if balancing were required, it's not the case that any reference to a trans person's biological sex necessarily amounts to an interference with their rights.
C's views are entirely mainstream and not inherently bigoted. Indeed, almost universal except in a very narrow slice of society.
Thinking about the way these kinds of conflicts play out. Take an example a bit removed from this case.
I'm a gay atheist. Suppose I have a colleague who thinks being gay is sinful. I find his belief very offensive. He might find my belief that his religion is little more than a fairy-tale offensive.
How does that work in the workplace? If every time he sees me he says I'm an abomination, or I keep asking him if he's seen unicorns recently, that's harassment.
If we're academics debating the existence of god or sexual morality, we must be entitled to refer to each other's individual protected characteristics even if the other person is upset.
That's particular case of a general rule that it is permissible to refer to beliefs where it is relevant.
People can't be expected to be too squeamish about what they talk about at work. So if the workplace is one where people do discuss controversial issues, that won't necessarily amount to discrimination or harassment.
May be harassment depending on the particular circumstances. You can't use a one size fits all rule.
So if someone with C's views deliberately uses pronouns other than those preferred by a trans colleague, that may amount to harassment. But not harassment if done respectfully in the context of a proper discussion.