The Times

[QGMum]

Anyone else writing to the Times to point out the difference between a fact and a belief? I’ve attached a screen shot.

You are, of course, correct in that it is a fact that biological sex cannot be changed.

I may be wrong on this, but I think the 'belief' angle comes from Maya Forstater's case where she was arguing that she was covered under the EA2010 for holding a view opposite to a belief in gender ideology - that biology was real. I remember confusion on these boards at the time as to why she was arguing belief rather than fact and she came onto the thread to explain - I'll see if I can find it.

Everything is a belief, really. We believe sexual biology is factually indisputable given the currently available information. I know that seems like pedantry but I think we have to acknowledge it, because obviously belief in what is a scientific fact can change. It’s just that the TRAs want to usher in a new consensus with no scientific evidence at all, by stealth and bullying.

As PPs outline, there are lots of shared facts on which we all agree but it has never been necessary to codify in law that these are facts or the convention they're widely shared and agreed as material reality.

Depending upon the area of law and regulation involved, there may be times, as with Maya Forstater, when depending upon material reality has to be expressed as a belief which is classed as a protected characteristic.

I get what you mean. This confused me about Maya's case that it was a "belief" that humans can't change sex.
That's how they worded it though in her case.

@tabbycatstripy

In no uncertain terms everything is not a belief. The knowledge that the world is round is a fact, a scientific fact because it can be proved objectively. Facts do change but that has nothing to do with belief. Facts change when new facts are discovered and those can be subjected to the scientific method to determine whether or not they are true.

Beliefs on the other hand require no proofs, they are simply assertions.If I believe the dish ran away with the spoon, I have the right to that belief and don't require any proof. The statement TWAW is another belief because it is simply an assertion based purely on subjective feeling.

Maybe there are different kinds of belief. The belief that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden is not of the same kind as the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Vastly different amounts of coherence and empirical content.

The idea that coherence in theory and quality of empirical content give you a better account of the world than intuition and fantasy is surely a belief.

Anyway, the law says "belief", I believe, so I'll go with that.

I am okay with the Times reporting that the person appointed to this role has used the pejorative term 'terf' to refer to women who believe sex is biological and cannot be changed.

The 'belief' is that sex is important. As a society, we could either:
a) define the boundaries of the men/women categories purely by biological sex. This is the GC position - that biological sex is important

b) define the boundaries of the men/women categories loosely on biological sex, but with anyone allowed to switch categories if they want to. This is the TRA position because they believe that biology is less important than how the individual identifies

These are two different possible ways to categorize humans. GC people and TRAs have different beliefs on which is preferable.

GC position
The GC position is that the purpose of laws and social practices which treat men and women differently is to mitigate the disadvantages that women experience as a result of our reproductive role and biology (eg vulnerable to sexual predators because evolution has favoured different reproduction strategies for men and women, due to the different biological cost of reproduction; less physically strong than men because in women evolution has favoured adaptations to support and survive pregnancy and childbirth, and in men evolution has favoured adaptations that help them impregnate women). 'Discriminatory' laws and practices exist to enable women to take a full and equal part in society.

GC people believe that if you let people switch categories, then the laws and social practices don't work to allow women to participate equally in society. So this proposed new way of categorizing men/women is really regressive for women.

TRA position
The TRA position is that they want to remove social restrictions on how people behave which they consider unnecessary and mentally harmful. They see this as progressive because they are only considering the effect on Trans people, not the effect on women.

A final thought

The TRA position is that they want to keep the man/woman categories, and they want all the same laws and social practices to stay in place - but using the new categories with 'everyone allowed to switch'

The GC position is that where sex doesn't matter - e.g clothes, hair, jobs, interests - then we shouldn't be treating men and women differently anyway!

If there is a legitimate reason to treat men and women differently, then it has to be based on reproductive class in order to work.

‘The knowledge that the world is round is a fact, a scientific fact because it can be proved objectively.’

I believe the world is round and I believe that has been proved to an acceptable objective standard. But I really do disagree with you on the principle. As I say, I believe it’s a fact. I believe there is such a thing as objective knowledge. Still beliefs. Some people (I think they’re crackers but they exist) don’t believe in objective knowledge.

(And incidentally that is exactly why nobody can be forced to believe in the ‘new facts’ of gender drivel. I’m of the opinion that people can’t actually control their belief in whether something is true or exists. They can only go with what their own brains tell them.)

I presume Maya was arguing "belief" because "religion or belief" is a legally protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

I think this is an excellent summary.

Facts change when new facts are discovered and those can be subjected to the scientific method to determine whether or not they are true.

I may be splitting hairs here - facts don't change, but our understanding of them often does. Even when most people thought that the sun went round the earth it didn't, the earth was still going round the sun. So with sex - it's a biological fact.

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.

As a scientist by training I agree with @Peregrina that facts don’t change but our understanding of them may. To me it is wrong to refer to a belief that sex cannot change when this is a fact. Lawyers may choose to present it as a belief but it is also a fact. While all facts may be presented as beliefs (that are true), not all beliefs are facts. Good decision-making depends on people having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. If we start presenting facts as merely beliefs we risk making wrong decisions.

Thank you to @JustWaking for the clear explanation of the GC and TRA viewpoints. This makes sense and, if I have understood correctly, these positions can allow both sides to agree that biological sex cannot be changed.