gender ideology and professional organisation

[showmethemoneyplease]

I'm a member of a professional (work-related) organisation. It has taken the view that TWAW, and we must be inclusive.

I absolutely agree about being inclusive but am especially concerned with women's rights. I emailed the head of the organisation to express my reservations about this. She said that members can’t say anything that challenges the human rights of another member, meaning that we can’t say eg that it's impossible to change sex.

But saying that doesn’t challenge any human right, does it? The human right ‘to have everyone believe we are who we say we are’ is not enshrined in law.

I’m concerned that the organisation has been sucked into believing the new gender ideology, but what can I do?

It’s really affecting how I feel about the organisation. I know some other members feel like I do, but feel that they can’t say anything in case they're seen as transphobic.

Any advice?

The Maya Forstarter case found that Gender Critical beliefs are protected by law.

On the 10 June 2021 in Maya Forstater v CGD Europe UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that gender-critical beliefs, such as the view that sex is fixed and should not be conflated with gender identity, did qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act). This means that “gender critical” beliefs are protected “philosophical beliefs” for equality law purposes.

www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/employment-law/blog/what-does-decision-forstater-v-cgd-mean-employers

She said that members can’t say anything that challenges the human rights of another member, meaning that we can’t say eg that it's impossible to change sex.
Does she know that THE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION has left the Stonewall scheme? If they don't buy it then why on earth does she?
Also, tell her that she is challenging your human right to believe that sex is immutable.

She said that members can’t say anything that challenges the human rights of another member, meaning that we can’t say eg that it's impossible to change sex.
Does she know that THE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION has left the Stonewall scheme? If they don't buy it then why on earth does she?
Also, tell her that she is challenging your human right to believe that sex is immutable.

Can you write back and ask what rights they’re talking about? Getting them to be specific in writing about their policies will stop them applying them in a one sided manner.

If this is their policy they must have a list of what they mean by human rights somewhere, right?

If it’s the EHCR then… freedom of conscience and belief? Freedom of expression? Freedom of association? Freedom from discrimination based on sex? It’s great if they stop members from saying stuff that infringes on those rights (the freedom of expression bit might sound contradictory, but the ECHR has an exception: speech that is designed to prevent others from exercising free speech is not protected.)

Freedom from other people having mean thoughts that hurt your feelings isn’t a human right of course, but I think it might be more useful to get them to say what is protected before quibbling about what isn’t.

Thank you. I did mention the Maya Forstater judgement in my email. She said that the organisation's wish to be inclusive overrides this.

She says that the organisation’s wish to be inclusive overrides each individuals legal rights? I’d write back something along the lines of and ask sorry did that mean that as far as work goes you think we don’t get our usual legal rights when you think it’s at odds with our business approach on an area? I would have thought that policies have to be aligned with the law since you can’t actually overwrite laws by just saying so. Are we ignoring employee rights all over the place or is this a one off?

The organisation's wish to be inclusive overrides the judgement of the high court?

Ummm no. No, it doesn't.

She said that the organisation's wish to be inclusive overrides this.
She said what!!?

It sounds like it might be an idea to get support on this. You need to stop being a lone voice and get numbers behind you.

It seems that a lot of organisations haven't digested the Maya ruling yet. We need some payouts, then they'll get the idea pretty quick.

She said that the organisation's wish to be inclusive overrides this.

Umm, what?!

What other judicial rulings does she think don't apply to her organisation?!

This is pure insanity. And if she's putting this stuff in writing, in no time at all, you'll have a very strong case. I'd be tempted to draw this out in correspondence so you have plenty of evidence when (not iff) you run into problems with the org.

The Maya Forstater means OP can't be discriminated against simply for holding gender critical beliefs. It does not mean OP's beliefs can't be disagreed with, it doesn't mean she can't face consequences for the manner in which she expresses those beliefs, if that manner is inappropriate, and it certainly doesn't mean organisations have to uphold or support those beliefs. Being an atheist is also a protected belief, but you can't join a church and expect them to start supporting aetheist views just to accommodate you. So many people on this board have mistaken the Forstater judgement for some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. Ultimately, if you don't agree with the aims and objectives of this organisation, you are free to leave. That's it. That's as far as your protected rights extend in this case.

Ultimately, if you don't agree with the aims and objectives of this organisation, you are free to leave. That's it. That's as far as your protected rights extend in this case.

Contradiction number xxxxx of gender ideology:

We aim to be inclusive and if you don't like it you can exclude yourself

So women can either exclude themselves and suffer in their career or have to live with gender ideology removing their basic human rights of dignity and respect. What a choice.

Being an atheist is also a protected belief, but you can't join a church and expect them to start supporting aetheist views just to accommodate you

So - organisations are like churches of gender ideology? A telling analogy.

it doesn't mean she can't face consequences for the manner in which she expresses those beliefs,

Where did you get the idea from that the OP was intending to express her beliefs in an illegal way? Reaching a little?

She's entitled to politely express those beliefs and to remain a member of the organisation.

Being an atheist is also a protected belief, but you can't join a church and expect them to start supporting aetheist views just to accommodate you

I don't get this analogy. The OP hasn't joined a trans organisation and is now demanding her views are respected, it's a professional body, one that OP may well be required to be a member of for work. So telling her to leave isn't helpful. These professional organisations have mandates and constitutions and if it's a chartered body they will be regulated by the privy council. They can't just make shit up.

Chair has said we cannot make 'statements that can harm'. Eg 'you cannot change sex'.

What harm does that do, except possibly hurt someone's feelings? What can I reply?

Perhaps ask for a definition of "harm"? Ask if an individual's own perspective on being offended or upset constitutes "harm" and ask if that is applied in all circumstances in relation to all comments? Ask if there are any other straightforward facts of human (indeed mammalian) biology that are deemed to be "harmful" when said or written publicly?

Would "your rapist was a woman" be an example of a "statement that can harm", perhaps?

The church analogy isn’t the best. Religious organisations have a special opt out clause in the equality act which says that when they hire people they are allowed to discriminate in certain regards. So a church doesn’t have to hire a gay person, and it doesn’t have to respect an atheist. In that rare situation sure, if you work for a church your atheist views aren’t respected and if you don’t like it you can leave. But this literally ONLY applies to religious workplaces. For every other workplace the standard equality act applies, which means that gender critical beliefs are a protected belief. The workplace in this instance are in effect overriding the Forster judgment by saying that gender critical beliefs conflict with trans rights when that is not what the law says.

If you were forced you out of a professional organisation on the basis of belief it would be illegal discrimination. Maybe remind them of the penalties and that crowd funded cases have public support if one was needed.

The courts have said that individuals must suffer penalties before they can pass judgement. It's shit but it's all we have atm.

@AssassinatedBeauty

Perhaps ask for a definition of "harm"? Ask if an individual's own perspective on being offended or upset constitutes "harm" and ask if that is applied in all circumstances in relation to all comments? Ask if there are any other straightforward facts of human (indeed mammalian) biology that are deemed to be "harmful" when said or written publicly?

This sounds really sensible. Thank you.

The chair's letter sounds incriminating. Their stance would prevent female members from advocating for their own rights under the equality act, and maybe prevent members from enjoying their freedom of expression under article 10. In order to argue for the single sex exemptions, you have to acknowledge that someone with the pc of gender reassignment has not actually changed sex. That assumption is written into the act imo. The act gives the example of a group for women who have been raped. The group can lawfully exclude transsexual women. It recognises that the transexual's sex is not the same as the women otherwise what would be the basis of exclusion from a single sex service? When we need to defend that right, politically, or if you should ever need to defend a similar policy for eg changing rooms at your work place, you would need to express the view that ppl can't change biological sex, even though they can change sex legally. That's why the law is what it is.

The law commission's recent report into hate crime makes clear the implications of Forstater, they highlighted that forstater's position on sex being binary and immutable is pretty much the same view as the law of the land. Worth reading. The high court's ruling in miller v humberside police might also be relevant, though that's about what the state can do rather than what employers can do.

I think you should contact free speech union who have in house lawyers who work on free speech issues. Alternatively contact Sex Matters. Or both.

If you know others who feel the same, I hope they can be persuaded to join you. It doesn't sound like the restrictions they want to place on members' ability to express their political opinions and moral/philosophical beliefs are reasonable and have been balanced against your rights.

Like PP said, this isn't a trans organisation, it's a proessional body who legally have to balance the rights if all their members.

You are supported by The Equality Act;

111 Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

26 Harassment
(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

@showmethemoneyplease

Chair has said we cannot make 'statements that can harm'. Eg 'you cannot change sex'.

What harm does that do, except possibly hurt someone's feelings? What can I reply?

Does the desire to avoid harm by censoring language only apply to people who identify as trans?

That's what I would ask. I'm one of many who has been harmed by the evolution-denialism of believers in the doctrine of gender identity, those for whom gender identity overrides sex and who therefore put (their ideology-driven) policy before people. It also harms a range of people who have other protected characteristics, such as disability, religion, race and sexuality.

It is a human right to hold a belief. It is not a human right to force others to espouse a belief they do not share. That's the domain of dictators and authoritarians and doing so would breach the human rights of others.

So if the head of the organisation is determined not to violate the human rights of members, she's going about it the wrong way.