Summary of steps forward

[TeenDivided]

Could someone more on the ball than I am help me summarise recent steps forward please?

MF: Sex can't be changed and that's an important belief WORIADS

AB: You can't discriminate against GC people for holding or expressing their belief

Interim Cass review (into GIDS?): Socially transitioning is not a neutral act (??) && puberty blockers shouldn't be given to children (??)

SB: Attorney general: schools shouldn't socially transition without parental and(?) medical agreement. && schools must provide single sex toilets && Things that are legitimately single sex are unlikely to be able to make exceptions for trans people of the opposite biological sex

Various sports bodies: (which?) People who have undergone male puberty no longer allowed in womens competitions

Is that right? Feel free to reword more accurately and add anything legal / structural I have missed. Just trying to get it straight in my head.

That sounds about right.
I don't want to be a fun sponge but ''You can't discriminate against GC people for holding or expressing their belief'' isn't correct. Its illegal to do it but that won't stop people from doing it.

e.g. ''You can't legally sack a woman for being pregnant''. Its illegal to do it but still 50,000 women a year lose their job when their employer realises they are pregnant.

MF also established that you can express a GC belief as well as hold it, afaict.

Examples of the “mistaken assertion” referred to above – that gender critical people were protected so long as they never gave voice or action to their beliefs – can be found here:

(a) Professor Alex Sharpe, Keele University: “’Not a Nazi… But: Forstater v CGD Europe”: “it is not clear any manifestation of this belief would inevitably have the consequences he describes.”: criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/

(b) Robin Moira White & Nicola Newbegin: “A Practical Guide to Transgender Law”, Law Brief Publishing, May 2021; Online Update No.2, 19 November 2021: “However, the EAT sought to draw a distinction between merely holding a belief and manifesting that belief. In particular it found that only holding the belief rather than manifesting it is protected (para. 78) www.lawbriefpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/APGTTL-Update-no-2.pdf

www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/forstater-v-cgd-europe-ors-maya-forstater-succeeds-employment-tribunal/

Longer piece by Peter Daly that is well worth reading:

www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly

Number of prominent organisations leaving Stonewall - various government departments, Ofcom Ofsted…. not legal progress, but definitely progress. Think Sex Matters track this?

Thank you.

So 'you can't discriminate...' is better worded 'you legally can't...' or maybe 'it is illegal to discriminate based not only on someone's GC beliefs but also illegal to discriminate on the expression of those beliefs'

And yes leaving Stonewall: Ofcom, Ofsted, BBC et al.

I want to have the bullet points straight in my head for discussions. To my mind it shows a definite step by step building of legal argument and growing organisational awareness. (I do wish girl Guides would sort themselves out though.)

Re Girl Guides, so do I - they are fast becoming irrelevant!
Ditto NAO - it’s really important to keep measuring sex accurately - otherwise woman’s (sex-based) needs and (sex-based ) discrimination become impossible to discern :-(

NAO?

I think it should've been ONS (office for national statistics), which had to be taken to court on census in 2021. I don't think NAO has anything to do with the public as such - national audit office is certainly feared by civil servants, as it scrutinizes public spending.