In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

So glad this has a separate thread. Justin Webb doing the paper review on Today was astounded - quite a long and surprised mention c 7.40am. This is news indeed!

As I often say on here, write in to letters editor/editor, share and reread or indeed the shero that Susanna Rustin is (Guardian emails are pretty intuitive). She has written a few very good articles over the past five years, but paucity I would guess suggests the struggles she may have had to be allowed to write on the subject when others have a free rein.
As a retailer, the Guardian will want to know that an article that makes its points rationally, elegantly and doesn't bleat is appreciated and well read - clicks count as does time spent reading and how often something is shared.
Is the tide on the turn when Susanna Rustin writes this:
"Whatever their views on sex and gender, liberals should be curious about why women are being ostracised and punished for their conviction that sex differences are important. So should trade unionists, whose job it is to protect people’s rights at work."
I'd say a definite yes. And it is important as the liberals and trade unionists are less likely to dismiss Guardian columnists/writers than her colleagues who have had to find new homes on other papers

Are you completely sure you want to say that believing that people have a sex and that cannot be changed is like racism, Jokers?

The tactic of always putting gender critical beliefs in the same sentence as being against gay marriage has really become too obvious, Dadjoke. We all get it: you don't believe in women's sex based rights.

Thankfully the tide is changing everywhere. Even the country where I live, a left wing newspaper did a poll and oh dear, people are not in favour of replacing the word that means sex with the definition of gender.

😂

OK fair(ish) point, but obscures things like the ET finding Jo Phoenix not transphobic.

Resulting in the hard of thinking Zoe Williams throwing a strop because they have 'anti trans' people on Woman's Hour - and people no doubt believing her.

Not only did the tribunal find that Jo was not transphobic but they said that comparing her to a racist was an act of discrimination and harassment.

Nice to see you comparing GC beliefs to a laundry list of bigoted or irrational beliefs.

You could equally say that it is protected in the same way that holding socialist beliefs are. Or being vegan due to animal welfare concerns.

Insulting a trans colleague using transphobic slurs would still be punishable under workplace policy. As would a socialist telling the boss they would be first up against the wall in the revolution. Or a vegan throwing away non-vegan food brought in by colleagues.

You can't however fire the socialist for saying they believe in redistribution of wealth through taxation. Or the vegan for saying they believe farming animals is morally wrong.

Or the feminist for saying biological sex is real and matters in some circumstances.

@DadJoke the difference is that Maya, Jo, Rachel etc. have all shown GC beliefs are expressed in a calm, rational way backed by science. Which is not the case for racist beliefs, or homophobia, or any other distraction you wish to try.

Well done Susanna Rustin!

The Guardian must be nervous about ETs given their exodus of female staff, open letters, etc.

If I were an employment lawyer, I'd be sniffing those bins right now.

https://www.theguardian.com/help/contact-us

Letters to ed, etc, here.

Holding a belief that gender critical people are, by their very nature, transphobic with no other evidence of this transphobia in terms of actual actions is protected. However, expressing this belief to hound, discipline and dismiss gender critical staff is not permitted.

Employers are going to have to be a lot more careful in future.

Anyway, what is it with the Guardian? Years ago they published this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/02/my-husbands-sex-change#comments

and the comments run the gamut from 'he's a shit' to 'she's a shit' with every shade of opinion in between and many good points made. Moderators barely in evidence.

Now, they solicit letters then publish only the blandest and most tedious ones.

A snoozepaper indeed!

As if Laurie Penny wasn't bad enough, Bad Penny is now back. 🙄

Ooh, also noting Susannah has a book out in June:

https://www.hardmanswainson.com/books/sexed-a-history-of-british-feminism/

Ouch! 😂

However, there are many circumstances in which expressing or acting on those beliefs are discriminatory and grounds for dismissal - for example, misgendering or deadnaming transgender employees or clients.

Yes, we know this.

However, the women who have won their cases for been bullied, harassed, victimised, discriminated against, forced out of their jobs, and then continued to be victimised by their former employers after leaving didn't do the things in your example.

I don't know if you followed any of the tribunals or read any of the judgments, but in those cases it is those on the opposite side of GC, those with 'gender identity beliefs' that are being discriminatory. Them acting on their beliefs has led to women being harassed and sacked (unlawfully) and winning pay-outs for discrimination.

Employers do need to be very careful indeed...

Expression or 'manifestation' of that belief is also protected.

It's not about what you 'suspect', DadJoke. We are talking about beliefs that have been tested in court and found worthy of respect in a democratic society. 'GC' beliefs have been found WORIADS.

'Misgendering' or 'deadnaming' are not offences and while it's not legal to harass or discriminate against someone, that means more than just 'using the wrogn word'.

What has not yet been determined is whether the belief that there are more than two sexes, and that it's possible to change sex, are WORIADS.

'Misgendering' or 'deadnaming' are not offences and while it's not legal to harass or discriminate against someone, that means more than just 'using the wrogn word'.

If only the worst thing the genderologists were doing was using the wrong word.

Can you imagine if that was all we had to worry about from them?

DadJoke

However, there are many circumstances in which expressing or acting on those beliefs are discriminatory and grounds for dismissal - for example, misgendering or deadnaming transgender employees or clients.

And where did any of the women involved in any of the court cases do that?

Sex is real and more important than Gender Identity in many areas of policy. It isn't harassment to say that. The only people that were harassed were the women bringing the cases. Something that seems to have escaped your notice.

Can you please provide court cases that prove that believing different races have different intelligence have been proved to be woriads. The difference between your suggestions and gc beliefs is that gc are woriads I'd dispute the others though.

Are you going to falsely misrepresent the Mackereth judgment again, Dadjoke?

I think we need more pearls of Righteous Wisdom from Bollock-Gantry-Gagster because they are so very educational.

#OperationLetThemSpeak

What has not yet been determined is whether the belief that there are more than two sexes, and that it's possible to change sex, are WORIADS.

It's been discussed in some of these cases as "the gender identity belief", but you are right that as it was not the focus it wasn't properly considered and determined to be WORIADS under the Grainger criteria.

Kucing

Nice to see you comparing GC beliefs to a laundry list of bigoted or irrational beliefs.

You could equally say that it is protected in the same way that holding socialist beliefs are. Or being vegan due to animal welfare concerns.

Insulting a trans colleague using transphobic slurs would still be punishable under workplace policy. As would a socialist telling the boss they would be first up against the wall in the revolution. Or a vegan throwing away non-vegan food brought in by colleagues.

You can't however fire the socialist for saying they believe in redistribution of wealth through taxation. Or the vegan for saying they believe farming animals is morally wrong.

Or the feminist for saying biological sex is real and matters in some circumstances.

Great post. Yes, the spiteful bias against women is clear.