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

I think "harassment" needs more harassing context around it to constitute harrasment in front of a judge. e.g. repeated, unwelcome, inappropriate, threatening.

For instance if two workers are on tea break together politely discussing gender, then I don't think it would come anywhere near harassment for one of those workers to say they were gender critical and for the other to say they were supportive of gender identity.

But now the tea break is over and they both go back to work. One of those two didn't like the other's point of view and starts shouting at them agressively and abusively. The recipient of the shouting calmly says "ok we can discuss this later, but we're on work time now". It has no effect, the shouting continues. The one being shouted at asks the other to stop. It doesn't stop. The shouter tries to recruit other workers to their cause in shouting abuse at the other one. This goes on for several days. An email campaign is started by the shouter to everyone in the office denouncing the other person's views. Management and HR get involved.

In both hypothetical made up examples above two diametrically opposing views get expressed, but clearly the context of what's happening where, how, trying to involve others, the repeated nature, agressive attitude, insults, threats, all count. There's a ton of additional factors on top of a belief that in my opinion are necessary to constitute harassment. Just expressing a belief politely I don't think on its own is harassment.

If your gender critical views cause you to misgender someone in the work place, or tell a GNC person they can't use a specific bathroom, it's likely to be harassment

Au contraire. Someone needs a briefing in the law.

If your gender critical views cause you to misgender someone in the work place, or tell a GNC person they can't use a specific bathroom, it's likely to be harassment.

It entirely depends on the facts of the case. "GNC" people aren't protected under the Equality Act. Gender reassignment is, but it doesn't automatically follow that males with that PC can use women's spaces.

I think it might too. It depends how the belief was framed.

"The TRAs don't get they are the flat earthers of the modern age"

Love love love this, @WinterLobelia.

I think that Susanna Rustin most probably saw that article by Haroon Siddique the other day and thought what we all thought, namely that the line "she suggested there were likely to be a greater number of claims brought by transgender people alleging harm, though many go unreported" was complete horseshit. And so she decided to write this article highlighting the large number of cases that had been brought by gender-critical feminists - but without mentioning the article she was responding to.

And I expect you're right, it probably has been scrutinised. That's why it's so cautiously worded. And she probably had to argue with her editor to get it published. That's my guess, anyway.

Well, perhaps not, but you conflated the two as equally abhorrent. Was that your intention?

He thinks he's being extremely clever, but all it shows is his misogyny and lack of understanding of these issues.

Thanks. I suspect I am going to get deleted though for being a bit rude.

You said it.
Very much smacked gob 🧐

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would love to know what Kath Viner's personal view is on whether TWAW. I was a few years below her at school and she was a brain on legs and an outspoken feminist. It breaks my heart to think she might have harnessed that colossal intellect to the TRA cause.

And revealing that he actually knows well that transwomen aren't women - because if he did think that, he'd be as dismissive of their claims.

Oh 😂
I just got to Dadsjoke’s post 😆
I’m winded!

As you were.
kind regards, this nazi-bigot-racist-non-man. Much loves.

I do think things are turning. Every article like this one reveals women who have been reviled, monstered, smeared, bullied, sacked harassed and abused merely for expressing the view that sexed differences have an impact.

Who would resist that suggestion? Only those trying to remove womens rights. And why would anyone want to do that?

Sorry.
On topic: a well written article that it is lovely to see featured in The Guardian.
I do hope this means they are reverse ferreting like mad. And it would be Grand if Hadley Freeman and Suzanne More (I think it was) have something up their sleeve against them 😈

And revealing that he actually knows well that transwomen aren't women - because if he did think that, he'd be as dismissive of their claims.

Of course he does. No one really thinks they are without changing the entire definition of the word to favour their male friends. They just think actual women should shut up about it, because we don't matter.

Sorry, quote fail @StephanieSuperpowers

@Ereshkigalangcleg
You know there's an edit button now?
3 dots to the top right of your post. It has a time limit of 5mins ish.
Any post that is edited gets marked as edited. Like this one has

It's strange how bot-like some trans activists are in their response to these tribunals.

Women have actually been harassed and discriminated against, Jo had death threats sent to her and developed symptoms of PTSD, Allison had to have a police marker on her home, and they've been wrongfully or constructively dismissed, and all TRAs can muster in response is 'yer, but you can't misgender, that's harassment'.

Always ignoring the fact that, in so many of these tribunals, it is those with gender identity beliefs that are the perpetrators of workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination. It is those with gender identity beliefs that, time and time again, are found to be acting unlawfully.

It's not the women here, or Maya, Allison, Rachel, Jo or Denise that need lecturing on workplace bullying and harassment, lads.

Not on the app. Nothing works on the app!

Annoying that - with so many legally informed, across-the-facts posts on this subject across many MN threads - a joker like @dadjoke can waltz in with something so studiously ignorant of matters such as woriads and the grainger test, let alone of all the details in recent tribunal hearings. Just in order to try and drop gender critical beliefs into the same pile as racism and other forms of bigotry .
I wonder whether he is aware that the false claim that gender critical beliefs amount to transphobia is part of what constituted the harassment and constructive dismissal of Jo Phoenix, and that the evidence at the ERCC tribunal seems very much as if the ERCC is likely to be found at fault for making the same unevidenced slur.
I've never felt more like making a deletable post, tbf.

Oh, studiously ignorant is brilliant! I'm going to look for an opportunity to employ it myself!

As he has demonstrated on a number of occasions, Dad only has one law book: The Big Pink Book of Stonewall Law.

It's strange how bot-like some trans activists are in their response to these tribunals.

Women have actually been harassed and discriminated against, Jo had death threats sent to her and developed symptoms of PTSD, Allison had to have a police marker on her home, and they've been wrongfully or constructively dismissed, and all TRAs can muster in response is 'yer, but you can't misgender, that's harassment'.

Yes, exactly. These tribunals are not about discrimination and harassment towards people who have a trans identity. They are about discrimination and harassment towards gender critical people.

Poor LOJ!

I agree, although I think and unwanted expression of belief (outside of a conversation you have agreed to have) could easily be discriminatory. That's why I said "can." However, deliberately misgendering people, or suggesting that GNC people use another toilet, or offer unwanted prayers for patients could easily be.

We need more case law to see where the limits lie.

"the DWP’s insistence on using service users’ preferred pronouns, and requiring Dr Mackereth to confirm a willingness to do so, were necessary and proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring transgender service users were treated with respect and in accordance with their rights, and to provide a service that promoted equal opportunities."