How is it a win to have the fact that men are not women legally classified as a belief?

[Davyjones]

Love to be proven wrong but it seems like a loss to have it legally enshrined as a belief because it’s always up for challenge now

any belief can be challenged and beliefs should regularly be reviewed

but this is not a belief but a fact so I can only see it as a negative

i know I’m missing something please tell me what it is

It was a pragmatic move by Maya's legal team. There is no provision in discrimination law for protecting people who uphold scientific fact.
That's because up until now, no one would have imagined that a person could be fired for stating things like the sun rises in the east, the earth is not flat, the moon revolves around the earth, there are only two sexes, men cannot be women etc.
I mean that's how batshit crazy this whole timeline is... It's not something anyone would have anticipated when drafting laws.

Maya's team had to work within the equalities framework to prosecute her employer and so they pursued the angle of protected belief. Belief covers philosophical and not just religious ideas. I think veganism was recently also ruled to be a protected belief in another discrimination case.

The angle taken in Maya's case is not just that she believes in the scientific fact that there are only two sexes, but that this fact is important and cannot be ignored because it plays an integral part in women's lives and in protecting women's rights.
That's the core of the 'gender critical philosophical belief'.

I see what PP meant about law not being set up to argue that facts are correct. At the same time though it's interesting to say that "It's not that there are no facts - though I think it's perhaps more accurate to say that things are proven to a greater or lesser degree of certainty". I don't there's much more proven than the immutability and binary nature of sex. So the idea that it's a belief, whilst encouraging to have it protected, is also unsettling as it does literally mean that there no facts at all anymore and everything is just a belief which you can make an individual decision about.

I know what you mean, I would rather we were arguing that the absence of belief in gender was to be respected, with gender identity as the belief position. The way humanists and atheists have to be respected.

However, I think this is a semantic issue for non legal people (like me) to get their heads round rather than anyone deciding what opinion would be a default.

Atheism is a protected 'belief" So I guess it covers non belief too.

the problem with facts is, like it or not, they can change. There's something called a paradigm where everyone knows something is true. Then unbelievers chip and chip away until it is obviously not true and the paradigm shifts. Ie once upon a time the universe revolved around earth.

sex is not exactly the same, but I just wanted to shove my oar in on why facts can also be beliefs.

But surely just because everybody 'knew' that the sun revolved around the earth did not make it a fact? The knowledge and understanding changed, but the fact did not.

My understanding is that it is “gender critical” belief that is a protected belief, rather than the understanding that biology exists.

And that there are two parts to “gender critical” belief:

• first, the understanding that biological sex is real and immutable; and


• second, the belief that the biological sex is a politically important matter for women.

It was all set out in last year’s successful ET appeal.

So a person might understand that biological sex exists but believe that it really isn’t that important. That person would not be a person who holds “gender critical beliefs”. I actually know someone who holds this view: they understand that biological sex exists (I mean they’ve given birth, so you’d hope they understand it) but they just don’t think it’s that important, they think that some feminists go on about biological sex too much, that those feminists are not intersectional, that those feminists are transphobes, and that they themselves represent a superior (and, entirely coincidentally, career-enhancing) form of feminism.

But if I’ve got any of that wrong hopefully Datun or someone will correct me.

I haven’t RTFT sorry.

It was so well believed thet it was a fact. There was reams and reams of proof that it was true, until heretics were finally allowed to present the reams of proof that it wasn't.

Yes! That’s exactly it. If it turns out that the TRAs and Ruth Hunt are right, and sex is a spectrum, and they can give me evidence to support the. —bat shittery— I’d believe it.

I really would. If there was solid evidence I’d believe it. I’d enjoy pouring over the evidence and discussing it and reframing my opinions and accommodating the brave new world advances. I’ve done that with other things - I’m very flexible in my beliefs.

Totally right, but conversely, if the four-leggers were to get the six-leggers sacked they'd be legally in the wrong. Unless, (I think) a six-legger was working in turtle care, and couldn't do her job properly because she was always reporting that all of her turtles had lost two legs. In that case the belief would interfere with the job.

It's because "knowing facts" is not a protected characteristic but "belief" is. So the legal team built their case on Maya's "belief" in irrefutable scientific fact being protected in law.

I understand where you are coming from OP. But what is a fact? The fact that the earth is a sphere is actually only a well supported hypothesis. Flat earthers believe the earth is flat and have their own evidence to support that hypothesis. It's just that the majority don't support this hypothesis. It therefore becomes a belief.

For the Equality Act there is no other way to prove discrimination other than to use belief. Personally I think it makes a mockery of gender identity ideology that I now have to say I believe that humans beings cannot change sex. I believe men cannot be women. The average person on the street will be like "what do you mean believe, that is a fact!"
This ruling will mean more if us can state our beliefs in the knowledge that saying men cannot be women and humans cannot change sex is worthy of respect in a democratic society. Noone can stop me having that belief and expressing it.
Hopefully this will mean that in the long term women will be less silenced.
Happy for someone to explain this better!

Sexual reproduction in humans is not something that involves “a spectrum”.

For two humans to create their own biological offspring, one of them must be of the reproductive sex class which produces eggs and one of them must be of the reproductive sex class which produces sperm; and they must be sufficiently fertile to produce a viable egg and a viable sperm. In other words a fertile female and a fertile male is required. And they need a human female to carry their foetus in her womb for a sufficient number of weeks before birth. Those “baby farms” in impoverished countries aren’t full of males being forcibly impregnated and held captive until they give birth.

When Stonewall and others start talking about “sex being a spectrum”, they are not talking about reproductive biology (and the two biological sex classes) which enable human infants to be produced.

Sometimes they seem to be talking about disorders of sexual development where a male human’s or a female human’s reproductive system doesn’t develop in the way it should. Sometimes they seem to be talking about “gender expression”.

If Stonewall or others genuinely believe their claims that “there are more than two sexes” then they need to explain how these other sexes go about producing offspring. If they can’t, then they are not talking about the existence of additional reproductive sex classes in humans; the so called “spectrum” they are talking about is something else. And if they talk about eggs and sperm, then they are in fact talking about the two reproductive sex classes that we all know about: the female sex and the male sex.

(Sorry to go on, and I know that you know all this, obviously) but Stonewall and co aren’t going to suddenly discover / provide evidence that there are humans on the planet whose creation did not involve sperm-meets-egg-and-foetus-spends-Xweeks-in-woman’s-womb-before-birth.

They know that. They are being disingenuous. They just want to force everyone, and particularly women, to shut up about reality and spend money on their training courses and tick box exercises; and to kowtow to their Male Access To Female Spaces / Eradication of Women’s Language campaigning.

The Equality Act was created to protect people with certain characteristics from being discriminated against. The sort of beliefs that were originally intended to be protected were things such as mainstream Muslim/Christian etc. beliefs. The Equality Act was never intended to protect general freedom of speech/thought in terms of soeaking general facts. For example, you have a right to say that cats are animals under human rights laws of freedom of expression. You also have a right to express an opinion e.g. Trump is an idiot. Freedom of expression is curtailed in certain circumstances e.g. you can't use hate speech. But it still means that you can say things that offend other people e.g. that advert on the side of buses "There is no God". That would offend plenty of people but you have a right to say it. You could equally take out an advert that says an objective fact e.g. an advert that says cats are animals.

There should be no need for a law that protects you from discrimination from saying an objective fact. There is no law for that as before gender ideology became mainstream there didn't need to be. No one was losing their job for saying that cars are animals.

Now that gender ideology has claimed that an objective fact (men aren't women) is not true and, moreover, is hateful and discriminatory, people are being discriminated against for expressing a fact. This was not envisaged when the legislation was created and so the only way to protect a person from discrimination is to use the Equality Act protected belief provisions. This doesn't mean that GC people think that "men aren't women" is a belief rather than a fact, its just that the law is only set up to protect beliefs not facts.

Sorry that is really long-winded but essentially framing the fact that men aren't women as a belief is the only way to protect people saying that fact from discrimination. I agree that it seems crazy. Just as crazy as if a religious cult decided that cats are actually people and not animals and discriminated against anyone who says that cats are animals.

A crazy world...

So long as we women accept that we will always be weak and inferior next to anyone - anyone at all - who has a penis and scrotum - or even once had a penis and scrotum - we can be strong. (*Also, it helps to wear as much lip-gloss as does J K Rowling.)

I know it makes absolutely no sense at all, but ... I hope that helps! :)

Trans ideology is just based on personal feelings about oneself. Trying to convince other people that male is female, has no scientific basis at all. But the zeal behind it is like a fundamentalist belief (and fundamentalism aside, at least the main religions, while personal beliefs, do at least have a very lengthy historical context, culiture and so on).

Another Ides comment, another mention of penis and scrotum. Could have put money on it.

Ides, seriously mate. You're obsessed.

fuck me, if ever a Posie Parker t shirt was needed it is “I wear as much lip gloss as JKR”

What I really don’t understand (and to be fair haven’t read the judgment which would provide the answer) is how the judge at the first tribunal ruled that this was not a belief ‘worthy of respect’? Surely stating what is scientific fact (as the general consensus know it) would automatically be worthy of respect? Or is it the second part ie that the sex classification is integral to women’s rights the part that was not deemed worthy?

I know what you mean, OP...

But imagine a similar situation where the USA said you can't fire people for believing in evolution. I mean it's true according to all available evidence, but there's a sizeable batshit ideology opposed to it, so it would need to be protected like it were a religious belief.

Same here IMO.

It's not that there are no facts - though I think it's perhaps more accurate to say that things are proven to a greater or lesser degree of certainty. It's that there isn't a specific protection, under English law, against discrimination for believing facts.

Thanks, Smiths -- this explains it very clearly.
It's mad that belief in reality has to be protected in the same way as a religion. But otherwise it would remain unprotected and we would be prosecuted for denying tha humans can change sex.

What I really don’t understand (and to be fair haven’t read the judgment which would provide the answer) is how the judge at the first tribunal ruled that this was not a belief ‘worthy of respect’? Surely stating what is scientific fact (as the general consensus know it) would automatically be worthy of respect? Or is it the second part ie that the sex classification is integral to women’s rights the part that was not deemed worthy?

I suspect the first judge was caught up in the belief system that says that anyone’s claimed identity (sex only, other characteristics are exempt) must be respected and that to point out truth is transphobic. It is quite a pervasive view and neatly demonstrates why something the OP considers to be fact cannot necessarily be defended as such in a court of law, as there are enough people, who would be seen by the majority as sane, educated people, who do genuinely support the idea that some men are women.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Facts themselves cannot change. She probably meant established facts change. What's considered fact changes.

I think it’s because the particular law says nothing about what is or is not a fact.

That’s the job of science.

But also because you can’t compel people to believe facts.

You could compel them to assert something was a fact, if you wanted, but it wouldn’t mean they really believed it, and the compulsion would likely infringe other rights & create a lot more problems.

So the law has to treat it as a belief (along with transubstantiation, that God is great & Mohammed is his prophet, and that the earth is a globe).

So long as a belief is worthy of respect in a democratic society (as opposed to, say, a belief that some humans are subhuman & should be exterminated, or that I’m entitled to steal your stuff) it is protected in law.

People can disagree with you but they mustn’t discriminate against you for it.