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”.

I’m definitely interested in seeing how this progresses.

Well, as I just saw Maya point out in an interview, CGD do have the option of appealing this decision - take it up to the next level.

But as someone else pointed out, this judge has never had one of his decisions successfully appealed.

If I were CGD, I'd probably try to settle now.

If I were Maya, and was confident of crowdfunding, I'd be inclined to carry on to get full vindication and some precedent that her actions didn't cross any lines. Maybe. Although there weren't that many actions, so maybe there's not much useful precedent there.

I want to know if that means we can decline to attend presentations at work from Mermaids, Stonewall etc

I'm thinking about school materials and books too.

Would this judgment help us to get the word ‘gender’ struck out of other UK laws where biological sex is clearly meant as the meaning, for the avoidance of doubt?

I don’t know, but look out for Lord Hunt’s question asking something related:

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-06-08/hl858

If I were CGDs legal team, I’d be advising them to settle now, and let it all blow over.

With the spectacularly sour grapes commentary from their big cheeses yesterday though, I get the sense that they’ll come out swinging again. Sunk costs fallacy? Can’t bear to be seen to give up?

Continuing the list of the ways in which gender critical women have been treated that are now unlawful:

9. • Bullying, harassing and blocking Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, Julie Bindel and Jeni Harvey on the stairs at the Jam Jar: Julie Bindel's from Sisters Uncut Bristol
10. • Physically interrupting women-only feminist society female students from meeting at University Bristol University
11. • Bristol University telling the Women Talk Back! Society, a couple of days before the event, that if they didn’t ban filming and photography they couldn’t hold the meeting. (all on the orders of a transactivist so they could harass female students without any evidence due to being filmed)
12. • Sisters Uncut hanging 'No TERFs' banners at Sarah Everards vigil
13. • the 'ban terfs' motion passed by Bristol SU
14. • Shall also threw a drink in Helen Steel's face and called her a Nazi:

Maya's lawyer Peter Daly is also representing Raquel Rosario Sánchez:
"people have incited their social media followers to throw eggs and milkshakes at me. I’ve read that I should be punched and turfed out of England. I’ve been called terf, scum, trash, nasty, bigot, heinous and sickening, during periodic campaigns of vilification targeting every feminist event I’ve participated in"

@FedUpWithBriiiiick

Thank you *@UtopiaPlanitia* for that wonderful explanation on NI equality legislation! As an NI woman, I've always struggled with the difference, and felt on the back foot when trying to discuss sex as a protected characteristic.

Seconded, very interesting to here as someone in England. I find it so strange that we are a single country with multiple regional laws.

@DeRigueurMortis

I want to know if that means we can decline to attend presentations at work from Mermaids, Stonewall etc

I’d turn up, and during the obligatory introductions round, when everyone has to state their pronouns, I’d introduce myself as follows (with a great big smile) “Hi, my name is Soon, I’m a teacher and my pronouns are ‘gender’ and ‘critical’. I’m so looking forward to hearing what you have to say...”

@PumpkinSpiceWoman

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

None of what is true?

The reason the case was brought under belief was because there was no other route to success. I would guess that the law never expected biological sex to come under attack (someone with more knowledge might expand).

I think the company CGD have assumed that because they are global, that laws are global and that they can ship in US culture and expect that it should never be questioned. A lot of global companies think we should just roll over - well, we have news for them.

I think the judge was pointing out that a GRC would be required to take a case of transphobia as a hate crime. Hope someone can clarify

and.........the Equal Treatment Bench Book had a massive amount of work done by a TRA and has been criticised for some time (at least a year). I think with the EHRC and this case, there will be updates.

Just goes to show how much Stonewall's law has had an impact and Maya's case has repercussions in all areas of work (and beyond).

I think if the CGD take this further and lose, it will be better for us because the higher the court the more difficult to overturn

@SecondGentleman

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).

"Allegations" you say? OK then.

the Equal Treatment Bench Book had a massive amount of work done by a TRA and has been criticised for some time (at least a year). I think with the EHRC and this case, there will be updates

good points @highame

now that we have clarification that beliefs are protected, the Equal treatment bench book must reflect that beliefs are protected and you cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs (unless Nazism or totalitarianism)

@FOJN

*This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity.*

Would this also apply to the use of cis for those of us who reject gender?

Yes. Referring to someone who has gender critical beliefs as “cis” is now the same as telling an atheist that they must have a religion.

Referring to “cis people and trans people” as though those are the only two options is now uninclusive language. It’s now “cis, trans and gender critical people” thank you very much.

Repeatedly asking someone with gender critical beliefs what their gender identity is (I’m thinking of you, equalities monitoring survey that I regularly have to fill out at work) without providing for a “gender critical” option is harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic.

Promoting the use of pronouns in work signatures but taking action against someone who states in their email signature that they are gender critical is unlawful discrimination. It’s like instructing staff to include their religion in their email signature and then hunting down anyone who says they are not a Catholic.

Well I now feel comfortable asking why my goverment workplace only collects data on gender and not sex, and uses that as an indication of females in the workplace.

@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.

It applies equally to Scotland. Both the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Equality Act 2010 apply to Scotland and so GC as a protected belief applies to all residents there, too.

The Scottish Government believes that although the EqA applies to Scotland, it has the right to change the Equality Act at will (to add extra protections regardless of the impact on other protected groups). For Women Scotland are is currently appealing a court judgement where they had asked for a judicial review of the Scottish Government's handling of the EqA and judge said it was fine.

The lawyers obviously still think it wasn't fine and that FWS have grounds for appeal.

What I don't know is if Maya's judgement will have an impact on that court case.

@Iceniii

Well I now feel comfortable asking why my goverment workplace only collects data on gender and not sex, and uses that as an indication of females in the workplace.

Two parts to this:

• Asking about gender identity without giving an option for gender critical is not OK (that's the new part that was established yesterday).

• Asking about gender identity but not sex, and then using the gender identity responses to reverse engineer an approximation of how many females there are likely to be is an insecure method of data collection. If they aren't treating any other protected characteristics in this way (are they refusing to ask about ethnicity, and just using a question about religion to infer someone's ethnicity on the basis that Hindus are commonly brown-skinned? Doubt it!), then they should not be treating sex in this way. This was the case before yesterday's decision (although I suppose you could now make the additional argument that the reason they are refusing to accurately capture sex is that they are prejudiced against people with gender critical views.)

I waiting to see what the Labour party do and also my union. May consider rejoining. May consider contacting their edi officers to enquire what and when they are doing about this.

@DeRigueurMortis

I want to know if that means we can decline to attend presentations at work from Mermaids, Stonewall etc

Remember that gender adherents also have the right to their belief, provided they manifest it in a way that is respectful to people who are gender critical. Like how the office Islamic Society can give a presentation about their beliefs, but they can't use that as an opportunity to denounce heretics.

But if they are allowing presentations from gender adherents then they need to allow equal time for presentations from gender critical groups. Anything less than parity is unlawful discrimination.

@NecessaryScene

Does the judgment mean that we can reject gender idealogy being imposed on us as women, by our employers or a public body or private company or charity?

Well, I just said "I don't think it helps", but that's obviously wrong. It doesn't help directly, but it puts people in a position where they can fight to change such policies, and organisations will not be able to just chuck them out for wrongthink.

That's very important.

I think where it really helps is being able to raise the possibility.

If a firm is thinking about mandatory pronouns in signatures, for instance, it can be pointed out that this is potentially discriminatory. So most firms would just decide to make it low-key and voluntary.

We won't know what it "means" until there is case law but it should be very helpful in terms of organisations just avoiding potential hassles.

This is a great, clear thread explaining the judgement in detail:

twitter.com/JasonBraier/status/1403083205448716294