Guardian: A politically toxic issue: the legal battles over gender-critical beliefs

[CheeseChamp]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs

"The social worker Rachel Meade’s win against the council and her profession’s regulator means she joins a select but growing group of gender-critical feminists who have successfully brought discrimination claims on the basis of their beliefs.

Gender-critical feminists believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and disagree with trans rights activists who say gender identity should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. Clashes in workplaces – in some cases with those who regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic – have led to a string of employment tribunals.
On Monday, a tribunal began hearing a constructive dismissal claim from Roz Adams against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Next month, Kenny McBride’s case against the Scottish government is due to be heard in Glasgow, while judgments are pending in a claim from Prof Jo Phoenix against the Open University and that of the Green party’s former deputy leader Shahrar Ali against the party.
In all four cases – and more in the pipeline – the claimants argue they were discriminated against because they hold gender-critical beliefs."

Not sure I agree on the last part:

"She added that the media attention afforded to gender-critical cases perhaps suggested that they were more common than they really were. In fact, she suggested there were likely to be a greater number of claims brought by transgender people alleging harm, though many go unreported.
“The overwhelming majority of employers are not setting out to discriminate; they’re not just thinking ‘well all people with gender-critical views are bad, so we’re just going to get rid of them’,” said Lewis.
“They just have got strong alternative views in the workplace and they haven’t known how to navigate through that conflict.”"

I think there is an automatic assumption by grifting good for nothing HR types that gc views are bad. And hopefully that is now being set right. Well done to strong women getting us here.

I wonder why they are successfully bringing discrimination cases? Perhaps because they were discriminated against, and the winning of the cases would strongly corroborate that?? Just a thought…

editing for the poor journalism challenged author
‘and they haven’t known how to navigate that conflict’ without sidelining, bullying, dismissing and in general discriminating in various harmful and illegal ways against these women whose own legally respected beliefs disagree with theirs. Some would call this unprofessional and that it merits serious attention by hr professionals, but not this paper, who similarly struggles to recognise and allow for differences of opinion.

Believing humans can actually change sex is so obviously factually wrong that belief in that is equivalent to a religious belief. So this is like being prosecuted at work for say not being a Catholic and not sharing the Catholic beliefs that the wine is the blood of Christ.

It is totally chilling and bizarre.

In fact, she suggested there were likely to be a greater number of claims brought by transgender people alleging harm, though many go unreported.

Possibly true, but I imagine they're far simpler and less important cases, and not really public interest.

We do monitor the ridiculous-demand ones, like Mr Non-Binary California Passport Guy.

But if a "transgender" person is straightforwardly discriminated against, violating the EA's "gender reassignment" stuff, I imagine the case runs quite smoothly, and it's not of public interest.

The cases that get the attention are the ones that are actively challenging the system and setting precedents, not routine uses of the law as intended, and everyone agrees it should work.

(I look forward to the day gender-critical cases are as routine and easy wins and not public interest.)

"They just have got strong alternative views in the workplace and they haven’t known how to navigate through that conflict.”

I think there's truth in this. My bosses are stymied and are clearly hoping one side (the more reasonable ones) will just shut up.

Possibly true [re greater number of claims brought by transgender people]

Actually, no, I've thought about the maths, and there's an issue here. There are far too few "transgender" people.

For them to even be remotely comparable, there would have to be a vanishingly small number of gender-critical cases. Firms would have to be thousands of times less inclined to discriminate against the gender-critical than the transgender, and that's obviously not the case.

Post Forstater, GC cases are becoming somewhat routine, so we really should now be seeing cases vastly outnumbering any trans discrimination, given the environment. Most hopefully settled before reaching court (like venues backing down on cancellations).

Interestingly, they do often try to use the logic that trans people are so rare the chances of anything involving them are tiny. But they're not applying that to discrimination claims? Hmm...

The use of the word "belief" when applied to biological reality is just so incredibly ridiculous.

Calvert-Lee believes the recent increase in cases will ultimately be a blip rather than a growing trend, as workplaces become more aware of the need to handle complaints and concerns more carefully.

Well of course, you’d hope so wouldn’t you? If employers learn from the rulings and stop discriminating against employees for believing in reality, no one will have to bring any further cases, will they?

In fact, she suggested there were likely to be a greater number of claims brought by transgender people alleging harm, though many go unreported.

Firstly, I doubt it, because TRAs aren’t exactly shy about notifying the world of acts of oppression.

Second, is it a competition? Does having more cases of discrimination make it a more worthwhile judgment? Does she know that one doesn’t cancel out the other?

Lewis probably wouldn’t like that suggestion of hers examined too closely, given the absolute [un]holy show that was Claimant V taking on Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Legal Feminist explains how the Tribunal ballsed up the ruling with the incorrect comparator here).

Lewis is correct about there being more claims made by transpeople (not sure I’d refer to this as a study, incidentally) but left out the fact that while claims made by transpeople doubled between 2020-21 & 2021-22, GC claims increased sixfold…

In AB v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames AB tried to claim it was transphobia to issue a reprimand for doing something everyone had been specifically instructed not to do. Shit & out of date IT systems were found to be transphobic.m, but over half the claims made were not proven.

A de Souza E Souza v Primark Stores Ltd in 2017 doubtless helped usher in mixed changing rooms. The ruling is absolutely drenched in Stunning, Brave & Most Vulnerable, even when they’re saying the claimant told porkie pies about some things.

And of course, who could forget Fischer v London United Busways - another claimant found to tell lies; not do their job; yell transphobia when it was pointed out they weren’t doing their job [properly]… but this time with the novelty ruling of “wanker is a gendered insult”.

As Hagrid would say: Shouldn't have said that. No more questions, don't ask anymore questions!

Well that's a remarkably balanced article for the graun! Are the edi department having a duvet day?

Exactly. It really grates on me, and I assume it's a deliberate move by the press and TRAs in order to place biological facts on a level playing field with gender ideology. It's as silly as saying that someone has a 'belief' in gravity.

Yep @Crankywiddershins they'll have been snuggled up with their emotional support penguins since Blue Monday. Back to work once the weather improves.

disagree with trans rights activists who say gender identity should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy

This is a remarkably honest description of the TRA position for the guardian. It is about being the most important and top if the agenda.

Agree the use of the word belief grates on me too, but that is the basis on which MF and all of the subsequent sheroes fought their cases. I gather that it brings GC under the protected characteristics legislation of the Equality Act and so is much more useful than, well, actual science which isn't protected at all. The Law is a strange beast.

Surprised the Guardian has even printed this. They zap any 'trans' realted comments posted below the line.

The guardian which allowed a group of its employees to bully out Suzanne Moore and Hadley freeman

I wonder if there is ever just a tiny flicker of “are we the bad guys?

Hmm are these greater number of trans cases like the trans suicide and murders and genocides? They think they just exist but in reality...

Meanwhile evidence is mounting up that actually it's females that are being discriminated against.

But no. Trans MUST be the most vulnerable, the most marginalised, the most discriminated against. Mustn't they?

I wonder if some folk at the guardian are feeling quite nervous over their treatment of gender critical female journalists? 🤔

When you see yourself as a good person and equate sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination and prejudice with evil, it's hard not to see the "terfs and transphobes" as equally evil. But this simple black / white divide doesn't allow the nuance of when a transitioning person can be treated as the opposite sex and when they can't.

Yes. Believing humans can change sex is purely a belief, not based on facts!

Thanks for explaining that @Igmum. What bonkers times we live in. I'm grateful that MF and others have had a legal route to fight this madness, but I do worry about the constant drip-feeding that basic reality is just a 'belief' which it's perfectly fine not to agree with.

I'm fine with "belief". The key belief being fought for here is "sex matters", not just that it exists.

Regardless of reality, you can take different positions on "age matters", "race matters", "hair colour matters", "religion matters", "star sign matters", "aura colour matters", and so on.

Reality isn't sufficient for trying to get "matters" into policy. Or strictly necessary, I think.

Bot sure why they are comparing number of cases of discrimination against GC beliefs with discrimination against transgender people anyway (even if they are right and there lots of trans people stoically keeping quiet about it). The fairer comparison would be the number of cases where an employee was discriminated against for believing that gender identity was more important than sex, and that number is probably zero.

Well in my organisation if it weren't for this grifting good for nothing HR type (and her colleagues) we'd be stonewalled up to the eyebrows, our women's toilets would have been made gender neutral (not the men's of course), pronouns would be mandatory, and gender would have replaced sex in our policies, because that is what our senior leadership team keep pushing for in order to meet EDI objectives from the Board.

But of course it's always the fault of HR.....ffs

Good analogy.

Laughing at the idea of the usual staff hibernating with their emotional support penguins.

They just have got strong alternative views in the workplace and they haven’t known how to navigate through that conflict

This is actually funny! So here is someone who has realised that actually the law courts are saying GC women are not being bigoted or discriminatory to have their views, and are winning their cases, but is desperate to still find a way to lay the blame on GC women rather than their TRA indoctrinated employers, so has found this rather weak argument that all these workplace conflicts must be happening because of all these difficult women’s poor social skills. Uppity women.
The age old misogyny infusing this thinking is blatant.

And on a point of fact, actually our views are the mainstream ones, not the alternative ones.

I think it's more that the Legal Affairs Correspondant has a better handle on the law than they do, so is better able to bat them away. I've seen stuff from him before in the Graun that's struck me as pretty balanced, so it's not a one-off.