Should we dispense with the word gender critical and just call ourselves biological realists?

[Stopsnowing]

Just that really. If sex matters and gender is mainly irrelevant shall we just stop referring to being gender critical?

A belief cannot be true.
Then it would be a fact.

I'll Google

Remember this judgement is all over certain internet places and media.
How many will not take it in the way you describe?
Can't say please stop to them.

'Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.'

EA

Knowing humans can't change sex is not a philosophical or religious belief.

It is a fundamental scientific fact.

A human rights site-

'The Equality Act says that a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour. For example:

an employee believes strongly in man-made climate change and feels that they have a duty to live their life in a way which limits their impact on the earth to help save it for future generations: this would be classed as a belief and protected under the Equality Act
The Equality Act also says that a belief must also be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people’s fundamental rights. For example:

an employee believes that white people are a superior race to others and tells their colleagues so: this would not be classed as a belief protected under the Equality Act'

How about naturalist?

^ actually EHRC not random site.

Citizens advice

'What’s meant by philosophical belief?
A philosophical belief is a non-religious belief and includes things like humanism, secularism and atheism.

Something can be a philosophical belief if you strongly and genuinely believe in it and it concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour. The courts have said that the belief in man-made climate change and spiritualism are philosophical beliefs. But a political belief is not a philosophical belief.

The belief must also be acceptable in a democratic society and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'

And so on.

This is what I would expect re what's a belief.

Knowing that humans, and innumerable other animals (plants etc) have two sexes involved in reproduction ie the most fundamental aspect of life on this planet. Survival of species.

Is not a belief.

Knowing that the world is a rough sphere, flattened a bit at the poles.

Is not a belief.

Unless, as mentioned earlier, getting into solipsism.

Lol SOT.

Yes could be argued a belief and for some it vv important to them.

Has this come to tribunal?

Naked rambler comes to mind. Plenty conflict belief/ laws there!

Jesus Christ, how many times? You are confusing everyday language with a legal instrument.

There is no provision for protecting facts in an employment tribunal.

The Grainger Test sets out the definition of a belief is in the context of an employment tribunal. There is nothing in there about whether it is a true fact or not. The Equality Act is making no comment in n whether the beliefs which it protects are true or not. None. You are adding this layer of meaning, based on the everyday language meaning of the word 'belief' but it simply doesn't apply within the court.

What would you rather Maya's lawyers had done? Gone into court arguing that a sex is a fact?

If so, that would have got the case thrown out as how true sex is, is entirely irrelevant to whether Maya was discriminated against or not, and this was an employment tribunal about discrimination, NOT a case about establishing whether GC views are facts, no matter how much you would like it to be.

It's kinda ironic that you're so keen to talk about facts, but you seem unwilling (or unable?) to understand the facts I'm sharing with you about how an employment tribunal works. Instead you want to apply your own interpretation - but you really should know by now, that's not how facts work, and especially not in a court of law.

I have commented twice I think upthread, about my discomfort with facts being framed as belief, in relation to Maya and her case.

I posted the relevant parts of the EA and from EHRC as well. Plus citizens advice for good measure.

They do not define belief as you are insisting they do. They define it as I would expect it to be defined. The examples are what I would expect around what would be covered as a belief.

Can you show me where in the EA act, or EHRC, it says that knowing long established facts can be considered beliefs in those extracts?

And please if you have govt, tribunal etc info saying that from source that sets out guidance etc, can you share it?
Would help a lot.

I'd be happy to be wrong, more than happy. But need something solid to show it.

Oh and also.

If it doesn't mean belief in the way vast vast majority of people understand it.

Then that's a big problem.

What are your thoughts on that?

EHRC thing on Maya case.

First was decided not a belief.

Then that got overturned, yes belief so EA applies.

In the doc ehrc say-

'We believe that it is important that our courts and tribunals continue to robustly protect freedom of religion or belief. We disagreed with the Employment Tribunal’s decision and thought that a ‘gender critical’ belief, that sex is biological and can’t be changed, is a philosophical belief which is protected under the Equality Act religion or belief protections.

We were concerned that a contrary ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal could leave people unprotected against discrimination and harassment because they hold controversial beliefs.'

They decided that sex is biological is a philosophical belief.

Nope it's a fact. Unless you redefine certain words.

Further they state that in their view, sex is biological is a controversial belief.

Nah.

It's a fact Vs a belief based denial of this fact.

Contraversial to who?
Some politicians, Various trans orgs, allies etc.
(Although most now say humans can't change sex, which changes things since this case).

Meanwhile. 99.9999 percent of people in the world know that humans can't change sex and that's in no way a contraversial thing to know/ state!

Oh wow.

Further down same document-

'The employment tribunal wrongly made value judgements about the legitimacy of Ms Forstater’s belief. It also wrongly carried out a balancing exercise between the rights of the claimant and the rights of trans people when deciding whether the claimant’s belief was protected.'

(My stars).

So the original tribunal DID (though shouldn't have) consider, judge, whether the 'belief' (knowledge) that sex is biological' was LEGITIMATE and decided it WAS NOT.

Fucking hell.

Gender is the means by which society seeks to constrain us by our sex.

I am a Gender Abolitionist.

falalalalalalalallama

Sorry I really just don't see where you're coming from.

Can you explain how I'm off the mark with this? I'm really struggling to get to grips with your point, and you are obv v frustrated I keep posting. This is really important to me though, and I believe generally. Thinking of USA groups using fact evolution is a theory (in scientific meaning) means same weight as creationism/ intelligent design.

Hello blossom, with you all the way!

Reminded me that this is a good example of how misrepresenting etc anything said by a certain 'type' of feminist has been great fun for yonks.

With gender abolitionists. This is generally presented as-

Everyone wearing beige shapeless sacks
Everyone same haircut. No colours, no variation, nothing.

Like the people going to work in metropolis I suppose?
Or certain vv repressive regimes.
....

It's what we think and especially that we say it that's the problem. And would be whatever we called ourselves.

...

Totally with you though!
Fuck sex roles!
Dismantle gender norms!
Stop pushing everyone into tiny boxes!

The cause of enormous misery for men women boys girls the world over.

I think many overlook / choose to ignore the fact that things like-

• Girls being denied education AGAIN in Afghanistan.
• Girls kidnapped in certain areas being 'brides' for the kidnappers, while boys taken are forced to be 'soldiers' -to fight and kill and be killed.
• And vast amount of other shit everywhere the whole time.

Are examples of gender norms, sex roles.

Nope ignore that.

It's all about total conformity for all. And the absolute crushing of any and all individuality.

That's how it goes... Has for long time, v long time.. Maybe forever (!?).

#ThisIsNotADrill

There are several different conversations going on in this thread and somewhat at cross-purposes.

I want here to pick up on the issues and strategic proposals raised by MissLucyEyelesbarrow, falalalalalalalallama - and others who are looking outwards to engaging the general public.

Anyone who has not by now "got it" that this needs to be our No 1 priority . . . I despair.

It is fine to air personal preferences for what anyone wants to call themselves (if anything at all) but that is missing the point.

The point is communicating with the general public, the vast majority of whom share "gender critical" views but will never have heard of the term and might need some persuading to relate to it.

Recapping PP:

MissLucyEyelesbarrow

"I think labels are powerful and important. Gender critical is a terrible term because (a) It sounds negative (b) few people understand what it means.

Because of (b) we are throwing away our biggest advantage: that 90% of the population agree with us. But they don't know that they do, because they don't know who we are, or what we stand for."

and

"The best names for movements say something really positive about the movement, while implying something negative about the opposition. They make people instinctively want to identify with the movement. Probably the greatest ever (from a branding POV only) is Pro-Life. It's bullshit, but it's highly effective. It's positive, it's conceptually easy to understand (on a superficial level), and it's strong. Pro-Choice sounds weak by comparison. If you were only going on the names, and had to choose between supporting life and supporting choice, which sounds more attractive?

The TRA movement does not tie itself up in knots, trying to find terminology that perfectly expresses its ideology. It has done a bang-on job of using terminology and slogans that appeal to the public, and that are hard to oppose. Trans Rights Matter/Trans Lives Matter: who could disagree with either of those?

We need something equally powerful and hard to disagree with"

=====

falalalalalalalallama

"It sounds to me like we're looking for two labels here. Let's be clear about this

1. A name for those women who are fighting gender ideology as part of our feminism. So, we're looking for something like "women's rights activist" here.

2. A name that sums up a belief in evidence-based biology and the lack of belief in gender woo. So, something like "biological realist" but without negative connotations. This isn't to do with feminism at all, but a wider term that anyone in society could use to show they don't believe in gender nonsense. We need a word here that the general public feel comfortable using.

Finding a word for the second one would be immensely useful IMO.

Pro-life / pro-choice is a good example. We are pro-choice as part of our feminism, but people can use the word pro-choice to express their stance on abortion without having to subscribe to any wider belief system or framework. (Although I agree in PR terms it could be a better term).

We need a term that gets across that the TRAs are essentially flat-earthers and we're reality / evidence based."

==========

OK. My personal feelings are that "Gender Critical" puts us on the back-foot because:

• it against something not for something
• it has to be explained (in plain English, not "feminism talk")
• to do that you can be tempted to first explain the opposing "gender ideology" view
• that is confusing, wastes time and effort and risks selling the opposing view - if it doesn't have people backing away because they think you must be bonkers to suggest that anyone actually believes that gender-nonsense stuff
• a lot of people will switch off or will sidetrack with genuine questions about what "gender" means if you do that.

Against all that, it has already been mentioned that Maya Forstater's Appeal has established that "Gender Critical beliefs" are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

(CheeseMmmm PLEASE accept that the law is what it is and that is what we are working with. There is a load of info and links here: hiyamaya.net/employment-appeal/ )

Questions that I am asking myself and would welcome comments:

1. Is it too late to think about alternative terminology, given that it is "Gender Critical beliefs" that are protected under the Equality Act 2010?

2. What are these "Gender Critical beliefs" that the Employment Tribunal decided were "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?

======

The answer to Q2 seems to be:

A Gender Critical Position

• The belief that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women.

• The belief that such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women.

• The belief that presentation and performance do not equate to literally changing sex.

• The belief that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights.

• The belief that I such concerns warrant vigorous discussion.

=========

The reason I say this is:

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Appeal No. UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ

At the Tribunal on 27 & 28 April 2021 Handed down on 10 June 2021

Before THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY (PRESIDENT) MR C EDWARDS MRS M V MCARTHUR BA FCIPD

MAYA FORSTATER - APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS
(1) CGD EUROPE
2) CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
(3) MASOOD AHMED

INTERVENORS
(1) INDEX ON CENSORSHIP
(2) EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT

Page 15

Outline of the Claimant’s Submissions

29. Mr Cooper submitted that the Claimant’s beliefs do not deny the rights or status of trans persons, that her gender-critical beliefs are widely shared in society including, as the evidence before the Tribunal showed, by some trans persons. Her beliefs are similar to those of the claimant in R (Miller) v College of Policing [2020] 3 All ER 31 (Admin), whose beliefs were summarised at para 19 of Julian Knowles J’s judgment as follows:

“19 In his first witness statement the Claimant says that over the years he has worked alongside many members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, and that prior to this case he had never been the subject of any complaints about transphobia. In [12], [17] and [18] he writes:

“... 17. I believe that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. I believe such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. I do not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; I believe that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; I believe such concerns warrant vigorous discussion which is why I actively engage in the debate. The position I take is accurately described as gender critical.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

=======

The question I have is:

Given that we have that definition protected in law, would the best tack in communicating with and engaging the general public be to stick with "Gender Critical" and just cite that definition?

Oops! I meant to add - and by extension to the views about males, add the corollaries about males.

Dammit! - corollaries about females! [confused0

I’ve skipped the end of this discussion so apologies if anyone has already suggested this, but I’d keep it simple.

We’re pro-safeguarding.

That’s it. We want to keep children safe and we want to keep women, especially vulnerable women, safe. That’s what it all boils down to.

(I do consider myself GC because like Errol, I was supporting things like Let Toys Be Toys long before a preference for playing with toy trucks or Barbies became a diagnostic tool for setting children on a pathway to hormones and surgery, but I can see the argument for having a descriptor that no sane person could argue against without revealing their position as foolish at best, bigoted at worst.)

@CheeseMmmm

falalalalalalalallama

Sorry I really just don't see where you're coming from.

Can you explain how I'm off the mark with this? I'm really struggling to get to grips with your point, and you are obv v frustrated I keep posting. This is really important to me though, and I believe generally. Thinking of USA groups using fact evolution is a theory (in scientific meaning) means same weight as creationism/ intelligent design.

I think I get her point. I share your frustration with the word 'belief' applied to facts, as many do (see responses to the recent 'do you believe in biology' thread). But the law available to Maya Forstater is couched in terms of belief - it is what it is, so that's what had to be used. It means that realists aren't actually disadvantaged in law beneath people who operate on 'faith' any more!

I do resent being told what I can or can't say by American racists, but ho hum. Someone upthread may have suggested this, but what about "pro-biology feminists"?

Pro biology may be seen as meaning biological reductionist

it seems a lot of the pro trans community think that us women think that everything about you should be determined by your biology

It's a horrid misconception, and one I would rather not encourage

@bordermidgebite

Pro biology may be seen as meaning biological reductionist

it seems a lot of the pro trans community think that us women think that everything about you should be determined by your biology

It's a horrid misconception, and one I would rather not encourage

Biological reductionist? Are we really trying to find a label for the benefit of the generalpublic, or to fence with other activists?

I assure you that the vast majority of ordinary people in this country wouldn't know a biological reductionist if he or she fell on their heads.

Are we really trying to find a label for the benefit of the general public

Yes, I'd like to.

I think something with the word "reality" in it (e.g. pro-reality) or similar would work well, as I think this issue is bigger than biology.

It's about standing firm that the world is real and observable, not a subjective idea in someone's head (which is basically post-modernism and what queer theory and gender ideology is based on).

Calling ourselves pro-reality (or something like that) enables us to show how it's not just about biology, it's about this bunch of people who want to be able to reinvent reality to be whatever they decide it is, then enforce it on us. But we're not having it because the real world matters.