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.