Should gender critical views be protected as a religious or philosophical belief under the Equality Act?

[JellySlice]

Are gender critical views a belief? Or are they a disbelief in transgender ideology/belief?

Should they not be protected under "belief includes absence of belief"?

Gender critical views are an adherence to empirically provable fact, not a statement of faith. Is the view that humans are the result of millennia of evolution a belief equivalent to Creationism? Creationism is protected because it is a belief. Beliefs cannot be imposed upon anyone, because their right not to believe is protected in law.

Isn't this important in the debate? Not whether our belief is permissible in society, but whether our unbelief is permitted in society, and must therefore be protected. That both society and individuals have the right not to have genderist beliefs imposed.

I seem to remember Maya's case argues both of these positions 'in the alternative'.

A belief can be protected even if it's based on reality (there was a case where a belief in climate change was found to be a protected 'belief' even though it was based on scientific evidence).

It is the right to atheism in a prescribed belief. Freedom from compelled participation in someone else's belief.

Religious tolerance is a fair way to describe it. Those who believe in gender identities should be free to practice their belief, but not to discriminate against or seek punishment for those they perceive as heretics. Or to require that no other beliefs are mentioned or practiced. Which is where we get the kind of 'you can think that in the privacy of your head, but you must not say it out loud or enact your beliefs' thinking we saw in the recent court cases.

Which is where we get the kind of 'you can think that in the privacy of your head, but you must not say it out loud or enact your beliefs' thinking we saw in the recent court cases.

This is what concerns me.

If gender critical views are protected as a belief, could 'believe in silence' not then be imposed upon us?

No, the right to manifest your belief is also protected, although it's not an absolute right. Limits can be set where it's a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, e.g. to prevent harassment of others in the workplace. And this works both ways, e.g.

• someone with a fundamentalist christian belief would get in trouble if they kept telling a gay colleague they were going to hell

• an atheist would get in trouble if they kept saying 'God doesn't exist though' every time the christian colleague mentioned something to do with their church or faith

Where the judge went wrong in Maya's case was that he decided her gender critical belief must necessarily mean that she would deliberately misgender colleagues whenever she chose. He therefore decided that the belief itself was not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

It does have to be faced though that using preferred pronouns is an act of politeness and good will. Otherwise it is compelled language and compelled participation in someone else's belief, which the speaker themselves does not hold. Which is more like requiring that someone genuflects, or participates in prayers in the workplace.

This is the crux of it. There is a difference between repeatedly and intentionally being rude to a colleague in the workplace in a way calculated to upset them, and not feeling compelled to participate in a belief that to the speaker is not true. Posters here for example may choose to use a person's name rather than use pronouns the person does not like being used, or to use pronouns the poster feels are participating against their will in a belief they do not hold.

There are many shades of grey. But the thing about religious tolerance is the tolerance of all beliefs alongside each other, and where possible minimising the presence of all of them to an equal extent to avoid these issues in a multi faith workplace.

There is no such thing as a scientific 'fact'.

There is a hypothesis or theory that is supported or contradicted by evidence, which is subject to questioning and sometimes change.

So, yes, absence of belief should be protected equally, as should all views, whether they are based on scientifically derived evidence or on academic theories or on religious faith-based ideas.

It would depend which religion has this as their ethos, otherwise it's personal choice, surely?

Not quite sure what you mean Devlesco.

'Religion or belief' is a protected characteristic in the equality act which means it's unlawful to discriminate against someone because of it.

The code of practice says, The protected characteristic of religion or belief includes any religion and any religious or philosophical belief. It also includes a lack of any such religion or belief.

So gender critical beliefs could be protected as a philosophical belief, or as a lack of belief in gender ideology, it doesn't need to be linked to a religion.

*Devlesko - sorry!

Didn't the EHRC just confirm that was the case (or am I misremembering?)

No it shouldn't. 'Belief' is a protected characteristic because beliefs are not facts. You can believe the world is flat; you should not have to defend a belief that the world is round.

But if the majority are going to claim a belief in gender as fact, even if they cannot describe it well enough to code it into law, then we are going to have to accept their version of reality whether we like it or not.

we are going to have to accept their version of reality whether we like it or not

And conversely...

Gender ideology and queer theory should be classed or protected under religious beliefs. Entirely subjective, unprovable and feelings based. They shouldn't be fired or persecuted for their beliefs but have no right to force it on others. Our right not to believe is also protected.

The views of 99%+ of the planet's human population, that sex is binary, humans cannot change sex and a lesbian is a same sex attracted female, should not need protection. This view is neither bigoted or dangerous. To portray it as such is absurd.

Sex binary is fact until we have a new 3rd sex that produces completely different gametes.
Humans cannot change sex if also fact. Taking hormones and having surgery only changes outward presentation, it does not alter a person's sex.

But if the majority are going to claim a belief in gender as fact, even if they cannot describe it well enough to code it into law, then we are going to have to accept their version of reality whether we like it or not

What majority? It's a tiny minority who believe in gender ideology.

I didn't say its the majority view now. But what if it is in another generation?

Well that does seem to be the plan, what with the indoctrination of school children etc.

But if the majority are going to claim a belief in gender as fact, even if they cannot describe it well enough to code it into law, then we are going to have to accept their version of reality whether we like it or not.

Like Anglicanism in Elizabethan England, or Catholicism in Spain at that era (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?). Or any other state-mandated religion.

I don't think facts should be protected as beliefs; beliefs are protected because they are not facts. Codifying provable, widely accepted facts as beliefs is a dangerous precedent imo.

But what if things get worse than they are now? Try to imagine it and ask yourself how we will manage, because we can't rely on common sense or good will to see us through.

I think you need to be very careful about pitting the idea of unprovable "faith" against fact in this. Religion isn't defined as something unprovable or based on some sort of irrational faith, that's a common misunderstanding but religious beliefs don't necessarily include anything like that. Generally what defines a religion is a body of truth claims that are generally agreed upon within the group, but could included almost anything, and a set of practices related to these, and some kind of institutional or cultural basis to pass that all on.

And scientific facts are also based on an underlying set of epistemological claims that are not themselves provable, so from that perspective you could equally say belief in science as a way, or the best way, or the only way, to know things is a philosophical claim rather than an empirical one.

I think the whole question of what counts as a philosophical belief is pretty difficult to define usefully, it could include mostly anything, given that there is no necessity that it's a very good philosophy!

No it shouldn't. 'Belief' is a protected characteristic because beliefs are not facts. You can believe the world is flat; you should not have to defend a belief that the world is round.

That would seem like common sense but unfortunately that would leave evidence-based 'beliefs' such as:

'The world is round'
'Humans can't change sex'
'The pope is a catholic'

... etc. unprotected in equality law.

Maya's case relied on a previous case that established that a belief in climate change was a protected belief, despite being based on solid evidence.

In that case (Grainger) the judge said:

… it is not the function of the Tribunal to examine the beliefs before it. Instead, it is the function of the Tribunal to analyse those beliefs to see whether they engage relevant legislation.

(this is somewhere else Maya's judge went wrong, he spent far too much time interrogating the belief itself when that was not his job).

Out of the Grainger case came five tests that are used to decide whether a philosophical (i.e. non-religious) belief is protected:

1. the belief must be genuinely held;

2. it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;

3. it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;

4. it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;

5. it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/01/18/the-grainger-case-a-double-edged-sword-for-climate-change-campaigners/

The judge decided that Maya's gender critical beliefs met all of these tests except for the last one. I'm not very clear myself about how the second of these tests applies to beliefs based on solid evidence but the judge had no problem with that part of Maya's argument.

It doesn't make any sense. None of this shitshow makes any sense.

But if we can get it established in law that a 'belief' that humans can't change sex is is a protected belief, then it means that any woman can challenge her employer's batshit diversity and inclusion policy, and if she is disadvantaged or sacked as a result then she has legal protection.

I'm not very clear myself about how the second of these tests applies to beliefs based on solid evidence

I think it's largely based on the belief being "sex matters". Which includes, for example, making sure it's recorded. That's not the same thing as "men are more violent than women", which would be based on evidence, and could be disproved by evidence. Either way to get that evidence, you need to be paying attention to sex in the first place, and that's the key belief. Hence the name of the organisation.

No of course not.

The fact that mammals come in two sorts and that if you want babies you need a vagina one and a penis one is not a belief. It's an observable truth that is the most basic one out there.

If it didn't work like that then breeding programs in zoos and farmers and for that matter all the mammals including us would be in a bit of a spot.

'There is no such thing as a scientific 'fact'.

There is a hypothesis or theory that is supported or contradicted by evidence, which is subject to questioning and sometimes change.'

Well erm ok. So like water makes things wet. We need to drink water to stay alive. If you burn coal you get heat. Metal is harder than cloth. Etc etc.
I mean sure it could turn out we're all in a virtual reality or something.
But there are some things that are pretty well accepted.
Like if you want lambs you need a ram and a ewe. Two rams won't make lambs. Nor will two ewes.

Do farmers need to be protected because of this belief? No.

Yes, it is something that is so known it seems absurd that it needs to be stated, Gerbil. But when we are in the realm of law and legislation I think it has to be. Nobody has ever done research to show we are a sexually dimorphic species because it seems so obvious it would be pointless.

Yet, here we are.

www.endocrine.org/advancing-research/scientific-statements/considering-sex-as-a-biological-variable-in-basic-and-clinical-studies

Anything to do with successfully breeding mammals is essentially research into it.