@Zzelda
Great result. But it is worth noting the qualifications:
"This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone
else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.
This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.
This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would continue to be liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment."
None of which is any problem and has never been something anyone has campaigned for.
Misgendering will occur, it is impossible for it not to. But anyone making a mistake should not be crimimalised. Indeed, should that ever get to court, I would be amongst the first tranche of women bringing cases against any man calling me any misogynistic term more than once.
As with any other human being transpeople have rights. The EA2010 is clear as to how they have specific rights based on their trans status. Nobody should be able to discriminate against them for that. Who would argue otherwise?
Employers and service providers shold porvide a safe envrionment for all employes and users. Again the EA2010 offers specific additional protections, as well as limitations on those protections when they come into conflict with sex based rights. again, who would argue against that?
NONE of that is in anyway new or interesting. It's just a restatement of the status quo in an attempt to obfuscate what WAS said here.
Buyng into the need to make any of that clear is what TRAs, Paisley etc, want us, jurnalists etc to focus on.
So don't. Just keep on repeating it is entirely legal to say "biological sex is real, immutable, human beings cannot change sex"