Gender identity as a protected belief - Observer article

[InvisibleDragon]

Reading this great editorial in the Observer about gender identity and gender critical feminism as protected beliefs:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/the-observer-view-on-the-right-to-free-expression?

“Gender-critical” beliefs refer to the view that someone’s sex – whether they are male or female – is biological and immutable and cannot be conflated with someone’s gender identity, whether they identify as a man or a woman. The belief that the patriarchal oppression of women is grounded partly in their biological sex, not just the social expression of gender, and that women therefore have the right to certain single-sex spaces and to organise on the basis of biological sex if they so wish, represents a long-standing strand of feminist thinking. Other feminists disagree, believing that gender identity supersedes biological sex altogether.

Both are legitimate perspectives that deserve to be heard in a democratic society. Both can be expressed without resulting in the abuse, harassment and discrimination of trans people or women. Being able to talk about these alternative perspectives goes to the heart of resolving important questions about how we structure society. They include: whether it is right that the law permits the provision of single-sex spaces and services; whether official government data, such as the census, should record a person’s biological sex as well as gender identity; whether women have the right to request that intimate medical examinations or searches are undertaken by someone who is female; what are the appropriate safeguards in the medical treatment of children with gender dysphoria; and whether it is legitimate to exclude those who have been through male puberty from competing in women’s sport.

I'd like to start a conversation on what it means in practice for gender identity and gender critical beliefs to be protected beliefs. We live in a religiously pluralistic society that largely manages to accommodate multiple different religious beliefs and lack of belief.

Can we use that as a model for accommodating a belief in gender identity along with gender atheism?

For example, in general you can't discriminate based on religious belief when hiring someone. If I want to hire a software engineer, I can't generally specify that I want an atheist one. But if I'm hiring an Imam, I can reject applicants who are not Muslim - as described in the Equalities act. Similarly, if someone needs a specific religious service - like receiving the last rites from the hospital chaplain, they can expect their religious belief to be accommodated - and for a Catholic priest to show up, rather than a humanist celebrant or an imam!

Surely it should be the same for gender critical and gender identity beliefs? So for some people gender identity may supercede biological sex and it is fine if a trans woman performs an intimate medical exam. Whilst for others, biological sex is more important than gender identity and they should be able to request without censure that a biological woman does this.

Also, as an atheist I don't believe in a God or higher power. I am aware that other people do - and I respect this. But not sharing their deeply held belief doesn't mean that I deny their existence. Nor do I typically have to perform religious rituals to be accepted as a member of polite society.

I read the article this morning, was surprised to see it, although the Observer is not quite the same as the Guardian, the Guardian have not been keen on freedom of speech for women until now. I get your point about the parallel with religious beliefs too.

Just double posted this - have asked to get it removed. The piece seems to cover most of the issues which is good.

I especially like the fact that Nancy Kelley is still being called out for her GC are like anti-Semites point of view. She has been quiet hasn't she. I guess it's very difficult for her to say that her comments were taken out of context

I know the Observer has a different line from the Grauniad, but I think this is the most robust expression of their line so far?

I was reminded of the old 60's Batman series - it was if I was seeing POW or BOFF at the end of every paragraph.

And that last paragraph, though - that last line!

Wonderful.

It’s a good article but the problem is one is fact and the other is a belief. You don’t have to be a feminist or know anything about gender to know that you can’t change sex. I don’t like that this is being painted as a “perspective” like gender identity.

Surely it should be the same for gender critical and gender identity beliefs?

One comment I saw today was provocative but I can't find it. It was effectively: So my belief that GC ideology is based in transphobia is protected by the same decision and I can act accordingly.

I thought this was incorrect as it is ascribing something other than error or lack of shared belief in an ideology but it's interesting to see the coopting of arguments in order to frame public discourse.

Today was the first time I've seen 'gender critical' paired with 'sex critical' in a sentence as if the latter has had a corpus of work all this time.

I agree, it’s like saying belief in a flat earth is the same kind of thing as a belief in a spherical (approx) earth. One is a well-established scientific fact backed with a substantial body of clear evidence, and one is… not.

@LazyHorizon - exactly.

I have to admit that I do judge and feel sorry for the lack of basic knowledge and intelligence that a belief in flat earth theory demonstrates. Makes me wonder what other science and/or facts those believers also reject.

@LazyHorizon

I agree, it’s like saying belief in a flat earth is the same kind of thing as a belief in a spherical (approx) earth. One is a well-established scientific fact backed with a substantial body of clear evidence, and one is… not.

Since someone mentioned super-heroes... If your child's nursery believed that tying a towel round your neck as a cape meant that you can safely fly out of an upstairs window, you'd certainly have to respect that belief...No, wait...

too late for me

@LazyHorizon

I agree, it’s like saying belief in a flat earth is the same kind of thing as a belief in a spherical (approx) earth. One is a well-established scientific fact backed with a substantial body of clear evidence, and one is… not.

Indeed. Honestly I still can’t get my head around the fact that biological sex being immutable etc is now considered a belief (albeit a protected one) rather than a statement of fact?

Honestly I still can’t get my head around the fact that biological sex being immutable etc is now considered a belief (albeit a protected one) rather than a statement of fact?

And this is where we are because the law didn't anticipate people contradicting science or the body of knowledge we tacitly accept.

Except - that the origins of this go back to the 90s and there were people who correctly anticipated that this would happen. And again in the 2004 debates.

The belief was the way Maya F had to position her case within the legal framework.

@lanadelgrey

The belief was the way Maya F had to position her case within the legal framework.

Agreed - but because the personal is the political the way this is now bleeding over into the social and general knowledge arenas are now both predictable and worrying.

I wonder about the implications of all this for the epistemology of knowledge and its impact on research and equity.

In recent weeks, there has been an overdue correction in the public realm, reinforcing the fact that both sets of beliefs – gender-critical and sex-critical – are legitimate perspectives that do not permit people to harass or abuse others or engage in hate speech and cannot be silenced.

Very glad to see this article, but it's a shame that The Observer are retrospectively reporting this change in the discourse rather than having played a part in enabling it, as The Times and much-derided Daily Mail have done.

It is a bloody excellent, clear piece though, I will give them that.

I like the term “sex-critical” to describe the opposing point of view.

@NoTruckWithFrontedAdverbials

I like the term “sex-critical” to describe the opposing point of view.

I will like the term when I know there's a corpus of knowledge behind it - at present, for me, it comes off as misplaced even-handedness and contrarianism that confers a degree of intellectual respectability that is nowhere near realisation.

I'll be thrilled when some activists move away from death threats, #BeKind and 'most oppressed' to engaging with ideas and thorough research.

That should raise eyebrows NoTruck I think it's perfect

From the article

In a democracy, there is no debate to be had about women’s freedom of speech.

In a democracy, there is a debate to be had about everything. But this debate should not, perhaps, be a long one!

The one issue I had with it was this line: "Other feminists disagree, believing that gender identity supersedes biological sex altogether."

It's not "other feminists" who are mostly responsible for intimidating women, threatening to rape them and wishing for them to die.

It's men. (As usual).

They've posed it as a disagreement between two types of feminism. And it's not. It's disagreement between feminists and a men's rights movement. Just see the other thread going right now about the spa in LA.

I think flat-earthism is profoundly silly, but I also think people have the right to believe it. But if we base our society on the belief that earth is flat, rather than the "belief" (i.e. fact) that it's an oblate spheroid, things are going to fall apart very quickly.

It’s a good article but the problem is one is fact and the other is a belief. You don’t have to be a feminist or know anything about gender to know that you can’t change sex. I don’t like that this is being painted as a “perspective” like gender identity.

I think what I like about the parallel between gender identity belief and religion is that, as an atheist, this is also how I feel about religious belief. It just doesn't make sense to me.

• I don't have a religious faith, I have never seen any evidence that there is an all-powerful God,
• the idea that I'm supposed to believe that a religious text is literal word of this supposed God seems faintly ridiculous
• morally if I am have to choose between something that a religion decrees to be right and something that causes less harm to real people in the real world, I will choose the less harmful option every time
• we can use things like carbon dating to determine the age of the earth and of dinosaur skeletons, which allows us to say that it is a fact that the earth is a whole lot older than you would predict if you count up all the generations between Adam and Jesus

But for people who have faith, their faith is an extremely important and meaningful part of their identity. It's a core part of their sense of self and their moral decision making process, and informs and structures every part of their life and their values. And for some people with a religious faith, the idea of someone who doesn't believe in a God is very scary and threatening.

And yet, in the UK at least, faith communities and atheists largely manage to peacefully co-exist without imposing their belief systems on each other. And that's not just by saying that we can each "believe" what we want, neither is more valid than the other. For example, we don't allow faith healers to abuse children they (or their parents) say are possessed; we don't generally allow parents to refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds; and if someone from a religious family is medically brain dead we allow appropriate religious rituals to occur before turning off life support, but we don't keep them 'alive' indefinitely because their family believe that God will intervene to save them.

It seems to me that an appropriate balance can be struck between gender identity beliefs and gender ?atheism. You can be free to believe that you have a gendered soul that determines your gender identity, but that you can't force people who don't share that belief to engage with it the way you want. And the limit of the expression of your belief is the point at which it begins to impose harmfully on others - whether they share that belief or not.

The one issue I had with it was this line: "Other feminists disagree, believing that gender identity supersedes biological sex altogether."

Yes, this stood out for me too.

I think flat-earthism is profoundly silly, but I also think people have the right to believe it. But if we base our society on the belief that earth is flat, rather than the "belief" (i.e. fact) that it's an oblate spheroid, things are going to fall apart very quickly.

This is exactly the problem with the whole thing. It's as if the flat-earthers, not content with believing in a flat earth, have decided that everyone has to be a flat-earther and behave accordingly.