Now that gender critical beliefs are a protected philosophical belief

[SecondGentleman]

The Equality Act applies across many different areas, not just employment law. Service providers, unions, political parties – all have to comply.

Let’s have a list of the ways in which gender critical women have been treated that are now unlawful. I’ll go first:

• Venue owners who cancel bookings from gender critical groups are now legally the same as Pontins when they cancelled a load of bookings from presumed Travellers.

• The Labour CLPs that threw out women for having gender critical views are now legally the same as the Labour CLPs that refused to process applications from Jewish people.

• Cafes that display signs saying “No TERFS” are now legally the same as cafes that display signs saying “No blacks, dogs or Irish”.

Excellent point, thank you.

My VERY wokey union will get very sniffy though. I'd challenge them to represent me.

It's such an important ruling.
There was a story in the last couple of years about parents winning a ruling against a school that insisted on children attending religious CofE assemblies. I thought at the time, how come GCs don't have the right to opt out of things that go against our beliefs.

Here it is. The irony that The Guardian probably thinks this is acceptable, yet women objecting to pretending the Emperor has new clothes are vilified.

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/parents-win-fight-to-secure-secular-school-education

Any organisation who call us Transphobic for stating biological facts, are breaking the law.

What does this mean for Scotland and the HCB?

It's an English case so I think probably nothing? They have their own laws around this stuff.

Of course it might well encourage Scots to bring their own legal challenges.

That's my guess, I don't actually know.

It seems Edinburgh Council pay little regard to freedom of belief: www.scottishlegal.com/article/edinburgh-council-acted-unlawfully-in-discriminating-against-christian-organisation

How about MNHQ revisiting this “clarification” in the posting guidelines:

Will I be deleted for saying 'male women' or 'male transperson' or 'male person', or for including them as part of the male population?
We'll continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, taking tone and context into account. We'd be unlikely to delete if it's said in the context of a civil discussion of biology.
If it’s used on principle rather than to express a specific point, we’d likely delete it on the basis that it undermines civil debate.
If it's said with the apparent intention of belittling an individual, we'd likely take the view that had progressed beyond a discussion of facts/biology and towards a personal attack

That in light of the fact that accepting humans cannot change sex is protected belief under the EA, any posts recognising that male people are male, are not “undermining civil debate”, “belittling an individual” nor a “personal attack”, they are simply stating material reality according to that poster’s protected beliefs. Stating a male person is male has no value judgment or malice to it, either way; we believe, it simply is, and that sex matters when discussing women’s rights, which is what we come here to do.

@NiceGerbil

It's an English case so I think probably nothing? They have their own laws around this stuff.

Of course it might well encourage Scots to bring their own legal challenges.

That's my guess, I don't actually know.

Is that the case though? Both the Equality Act and Human Rights Act are UK wide legislation. I can't see that they can have different meanings on different jurisdictions.

@EndoplasmicReticulum

Does Mumsnet have to undo a few bannings?

Imagine how many twitter would have to do

I came on to say pronouns too. I'm waiting for that to come my way at work.

Pronouns.
Received an email from "Mary" yesterday. Letting me know 'she/her'. As if I couldn't possibly guess.

@NiceGerbil

I must admit I don't understand how knowing that biological sex exists in mammals and there's male and female is a belief TBH

I agree. It's like going backwards, in a way, because it's protecting a belief which really should be accepted fact. It's not like a religion... I'd rather they made more of a point that it isn't transphobic to challenge nonsense, stand up for women and state facts. I'm very happy about MF's ruling though, obviously.

Except none of that is true. Ms Forstater has won the right to a new tribunal. Full stop.

Tibtom a lot of laws are different in England and Wales, and Scotland, and NI.

They have different verdicts in courts and stuff as well (not proven).

So I don't know if their EA employment type laws differ.

They are about to change the protected characteristics for their hate crime law though.

@PumpkinSpiceWoman

Except none of that is true. Ms Forstater has won the right to a new tribunal. Full stop.

That's not true.

What's been achieved is far more important than that.

That holding GC beliefs means you cannot be discriminated against.

Whatever happens in the Tribunal re-run doesn't change that.

You've failed to understand the significance of the ruling or are deliberately trying to minimise its importance.

Neither options serve you well.

in light of the fact that accepting humans cannot change sex is protected belief under the EA, any posts recognising that male people are male, are not “undermining civil debate”, “belittling an individual” nor a “personal attack”, they are simply stating material reality according to that poster’s protected beliefs. Stating a male person is male has no value judgment or malice to it, either way; we believe, it simply is, and that sex matters when discussing women’s rights, which is what we come here to do.

That would make a refreshing change. I'd also like to see the unfairly banned women invited back.

Pumpkinspicewoman is exactly right though - the judgement states (on page 4 - their bold)

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of
either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.

@NiceGerbil

I must admit I don't understand how knowing that biological sex exists in mammals and there's male and female is a belief TBH

A bit ago a guy won a discrimination case on the basis of belief; he had been badly treated at work because he believed in climate change. I was cross at the time that something that's accepted as fact by the international scientific community could be treated as a mere belief, but apparently that's how it works in English law; whether or not you're right to hold a belief is irrelevant to whether you can be discriminated against for holding it. Which is weird - but is one of the reasons why Judge Tayler was so wrong: he formed an opinion about whether Maya's opinion was correct. In his hands, the test of whether an opinion is worthy of protection became "whether Judge Tayler agrees with it". Arrogant tit.

Oh lordy. The disingenuousness from twitter has leaked over here now

Yep, it states all of that. What you are failing to grasp is that this ruling establishes that it is unlawful to discriminate, harrass or victimise someone, on the grounds that they believe humans cannot change sex. That is it. Nobody here wants to do any of those things you’ve quoted. We want to be able to state our own beliefs, and discuss openly and fairly without having to use obfuscating language denying the material reality of sex, when we discuss issues that impact on women’s rights. That’s what we’re here for. And now it’s established that we can do that and not be discriminated against, harassed or victimised when we do.

@SecondGentleman

The Labour CLPs that threw out women for having gender critical views are now legally the same as the Labour CLPs that refused to process applications from Jewish people.

Sorry for the OT tangent but I have to ask: Do you seriously believe that Labour CLPs refused to process applications from jewish people?

@CatherinaJTV

Pumpkinspicewoman is exactly right though - the judgement states (on page 4 - their bold)

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of
either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.

Again you've missed the point of the ruling....

Feel free to try and keep gas lighting but it won't work.

It's a very important judgement that confirms GC views cannot be discriminated against.

It's not, or ever was the intention of the case to say it's acceptable to discriminate against someone's gender reassignment.

It's simply saying the same in reverse, that you can't discriminate on the basis of someone holding GC beliefs.

Google might help.

I wouldn't be surprised though. The anti semitism was entrenched and widespread and unchallenged for long time.