Guardian: The legal battle over gender critical beliefs

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

A good, balanced article in the Guardian of all places.

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

Westminster city council and Social Work England last week became the latest to join a list of organisations – including Arts Council England, a barristers’ chambers and a thinktank – found to have discriminated against a female worker because of their gender-critical beliefs.

The social worker Rachel Meade’s winn^ 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.

“What Forstater and Bailey have done is they’ve set this very strong precedent of tolerance,” Calvert-Lee said.
“Above all, in a pluralistic society, which is what we want, you have to accept that people are going to have different views and some people are going to find their colleagues’ views completely obnoxious – but nevertheless protected because freedom of speech is something that … has been really promoted and underlined.
“It’s always been there but it’s been sort of forgotten in some of these culture wars.”

What is weird about this completely normal article is that it will be cited by TRA's as transphobic. At least it was written by a man, it's women who inspire the most vitriol from TRAs.

On a side point he's completely right to flag these cases as hugely influential on corporate/HR policies and handling.

This part isn't wholly accurate though, having read the whole Mackereth appeal judgment only this week. He didn't actually misgender anyone, it never got that far. He wanted to be able to avoid using preferred pronouns, and he resigned on the basis of being told he couldn't. The first ET was prior to Maya Forstater's and he was told his gender critical belief wasn't worthy of respect in a democratic society, like Maya's.

At appeal this part of the case was overturned in the same way it was in Maya's (her successful EAT had already taken place). He was still found to have not been discriminated or harassed by the DWP pronoun policy, as it was considered that it was reasonable to expect him to use the vulnerable service users' preferred pronouns, and it was not very often.

The tribunals have made clear that it is not a free-for-all but a balancing exercise. For instance, David Mackereth – an outlier in that he lost his case based on gender-critical beliefs – was found to have crossed the linee^ by misgendering service users at the Department for Work and Pensions, making its decision to dismiss him reasonable.

What is weird about this completely normal article is that it will be cited by TRA's as transphobic. At least it was written by a man, it's women who inspire the most vitriol from TRAs.

Yes, so true.

I missed an earlier thread on this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4988410-guardian-a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs

It wasn't good and balanced it was snide and weaselly. The Guardian is probably getting worried that they might be up in court next.
How many people realise that because they know there are two sexes they hold 'gender critical beliefs?
Gender expression is cultural and reflects the needs and fashions of the two sexes which change over time and place. Knowing that some people wish to present themselves as if they were of the opposite sex is their gender expression and as old as the hills for many different reasons and has always been tolerated and rarely condemned. But those same people saying they actually are that sex and therefore must be addressed as such otherwise be guilty of a hate crime, that they can have access to spaces on their self identity which have always been safeguarded for the female sex for obvious reasons and to compete in sports where the physical standards are lower to accommodate females so they have an advantage...NO. Ludicrous.
It's not hate to say so, it's common sense and reality and although women are used to nod along to male claims for a quiet life...it is not true and women have to stand up for their rights and protection which have been hard won in their long march for equality in our patriarchal society. For men to utilise mock and exploit those protections in law and changing of language is testament to how far men will go. In the same way as they mock and sexualise female stereotypes as entertainment.
I notice the article was written by one of their legal team. Had to be done. I don't think it is a change of heart they are still captured. I have had to cancel my Guardian subscription as well as this week my New Statesman subscription after their silly article about JK Rowling being the Nastiest Novelist. I come here just to find some thinkers who feel the same and can speak. Thanks Mumsnet.

This part isn't wholly accurate though, having read the whole Mackereth appeal judgment only this week. He didn't actually misgender anyone, it never got that far. He wanted to be able to avoid using preferred pronouns, and he resigned on the basis of being told he couldn't.

My understanding is that he (frustratingly) dropped the argument that he could have avoid pronoun use for trans customers by choosing his wording carefully to avoid pronouns. His case went ahead on the basis that he wanted to use pronouns that corresponded to biological sex.

I guess I meant that in relative terms! The last time they published an article which gave any sort of gender critical perspective on UK legal issues they got slapped down by the US office in a display of extraordinary cultural imperialism.

My understanding is that he (frustratingly) dropped the argument that he could have avoid pronoun use for trans customers by choosing his wording carefully to avoid pronouns. His case went ahead on the basis that he wanted to use pronouns that corresponded to biological sex.

Yes I think you are right. They might have considered the former a reasonable adjustment.