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”.

The reporting on the BBC says that there was no evidence that she had harassed anyone.

And that lie has been very widely shared.

So that's something that has come out of it.

About eighteen months ago I was active in the local Constituency Labour Party. That was about the time that the leadership candidates almost all signed that horrible pledge to throw GC people out of the party. A few months later the GC Chair resigned, sending a distressed email to the members saying that she'd been called a bigot for her views. There was no apology, no reflection, no consideration of whether people had behaved appropriately. Was the LP creating a hostile environment for GC people? I say it was.

"philosophical belief" - that in itself is a joke. There is nothing philosophical about it.

smithsinarazz - similar here, added my voice on the GRA review and was accused of transphobia and invited to leave the CLP. Which I didn't.

@Pan2

Also....will those of us suffering employment formal procedures for saying 'TWANW' be able to reasonably apply to have disciplinary measures rescinded? We didn't break any law.

I should think it would depend upon the context as to whether or not it was an unreasonable manifestation of your belief or was necessary to the work context.

I’ve not read the judgment in full, but two things that caught my interest were that we need a test case on what constitutes harassment re not using preferred pronouns. Not sure if Maya’s tribunal will address this. Also, J. Choudhury made an interesting comment that the pc of gender reassignment might not be relevant to all trans persons, and I would like to know where/if this fits, given AEA v EHRC, and Land Rover.

Ah, thanks, it was in context of a relevant work subject, noted by someone who wasn't even in the discussion, and reported to my employer, Stasi-style.
I'll have a think about it, thank you.

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

@CatherinaJTV

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

And I would hope that, as per Peter Daley, organisations grasp that you can not go round reporting, disrespecting, suspending, or firing people who hold that sex is immutable.

For employers and similar organisations, the approach to equality and diversity training as relevant to sex and gender issues must never be a box ticking exercise. Such an approach – for example solely by an adoption of Gender Theory principles and training – is not only inadequate, it is a significant legal risk. A workforce which receives training on only one theory of sex and gender, and which eschews any alternative, is a workforce in which discrimination is more likely to occur.
…
Similarly, policies which demand a positive adoption of tenets of Gender Theory - such as directing the mandatory insertion of pronouns in email footers – are not the tool of inclusivity that they may have been presented or even intended: such practices may exclude those with protected Gender Critical beliefs (quite apart from the fact that they may necessitate the outing of trans people who have no desire to be outed). They may be evidence of the hostile environment described at s.26(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, providing support to claims of unlawful harassment, or otherwise demonstrate direct or indirect discrimination.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly?

@CatherinaJTV

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

And again the same in reverse.....

Thanks Catherina, but none of those things had anything to do with it.

I'm hoping it will help the case the Guiders are bringing against guides...

I'd also like Lang back.

And the rest.

That was about the time that the leadership candidates almost all signed that horrible pledge to throw GC people out of the party.

That pledge, and the MPs who signed it promoted discrimination of people with a protected belief. Labour will need to get a grip on the abuse and discrimination within the party or they will face another EHRC investigation

I don’t think correctly referring to someone’s sex, is harassment or undignified. Pronouns are not slurs.
At work, I wouldn’t argue with/correct a colleague who was trans about their preferred pronouns. I wouldn’t argue with/correct other colleagues who used preferred pronouns. I reserve the right not to use them, and not be argued with/corrected in return. No-one is being compelled with regard to their speech, to express a belief they do not hold.
I believe this was the outcome of the bakers in NI re the message on a wedding cake. But, I think there needs to be more guidance.

[quote FifteenToes]@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?[/quote]
@FifteenToes This was one of the specific allegations of anti-Semitism that was submitted to the EHRC. It was the South Tottenham CLP. They refused membership applications from ultra-Orthodox Jews without home visits (not a requirement for anyone else).

@CatherinaJTV

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

WE KNOW.

@PumpkinSpiceWoman

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

And the new tribunal will be bound to apply the ruling of the higher court (ie, the EAT) in today's ruling. So her new tribunal will proceed on the basis that she has a protected philosophical belief. As that is now the law.

But I’m also really interested in the judge’s comment re pc of gender reassignment only being applicable to a proportion of trans people.
Does he mean applicable only to those who are ‘indistinguishable’, or have a GRC? (which is in opposition to EHRC and judge in Ann Sinnott’s case).
Or, could he mean not applicable to non-binary people? Maya’s accidental misgendering of the non-binary Gregor Murray was used as evidence of manifestation of belief in her original tribunal. This would not concord with the Land Rover ruling, I believe.
I find it really interesting, hope there’s some legal discussion on it.

I wish Rosie Duffield would take out a case against the Labour Party for their lack of support and abusive behaviour of Labour Party members. She implied today in a tweet she has had no support from Starmer (even behind the scenes).

@CatherinaJTV

You can hold GC views, but you cannot go round and misgender trans colleagues or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace

No, and I don't think anyone here has suggested they want to

We already know you can't harass trans people, it's not news to us. It was discussed in depth right at the start, and it was discussed during the appeal by Maya's own legal team.

But it's now been established that people with gender critical beliefs can't be harassed or discriminated against either. Which is a massive win for every woman who has lost her job, or been investigated, deplatformed, reported to the police etc for knowing what a woman is and is not.

The days of us being abused and maliciously reported for holding views (that are "on all fours with the law", don't forget) are over, and it's about bloody time.

Today was a fantastic day. Absolutely fantastic.

@NiceGerbil

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).

I know lots of laws are different but my point is the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 which are the laws applicable in this case apply across the whole of the UK.

You can hold gender ideological views, but you cannot go round and forcing colleagues speech or disrespect them in other ways that go against dignity and respect in the workplace.

Ah ok fair enough.

The law doesn't need to change its the application of it in her case. So a precedent?

And the main problem in Scotland at the moment needs to be the hate crime laws.

Let's remember what PumpkinSpiceWoman pretended repeatedly to think Helen Staniland was 'admitting' in a very sarky video clip and think about whether this is someone with whom we wish to engage in good faith. (Think the thread was deleted for obvious reasons but another one still stands where they make the same dishonest claims).