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 have strong suspicions that Kath Viner doesn't believe any of this trans nonsense, she just goes along with it to keep the Guardian's US readers sweet. She doesn't feel strongly enough to take a principled stand.

Well if it was attention seeking, it did the job

@DadJoke
Would a refusal to use pronous constitute harassment in your opinion? Person A is trans and has pronouns incongruent with their sex. Person B is gender critical and believes it's impossible to change sex.
Person B doesn't want to play the pronoun game because it goes against their beliefs, so what person B does is always use person A's approved name, never pronouns. Pronouns are just a linguistic shortcut anyway.

Is person B harassing person A by always using their name and refusing to play the pronoun game? ( Never using ANY pronouns to refer to person A )

Does anyone remember the Twitter meme that was so popular in the wake of the Forstater judgement along the lines of Yes, but the ruling does NOT mean that Maya Forstater can punch her colleagues / demand free coffees in every Costa branch / torture squirrels / etc -- poking fun at the tendency of TRAs to throw up a lot of dust around the very small sane victories that GC claimants are seeking and receiving, in order to obscure just how reasonable and well-defined their cases are.
Dadjoke's first post is like a reverse version of this - implying that, oh no!, employment tribunal decisions that allow women to say that sex is real-and-sometimes-relevant are liberating racism!

Yes I think there was a whole MN thread of them @GoodOldEmmaNess

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4267342-Its-important-to-emphasise-that-the-ruling-does-NOT-give-Maya-Forstater-the-right-to

• It's important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to finish up the last of the toilet paper without replacing it

• It's important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to break into a museum and draw moustaches on all portraits

• It's important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to redecorate your house if she doesn't like your wallpaper

• It's important to emphasize that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to tempt your cat away from home with Dreamies and claim it was hers all along.

• It’s important to emphasize that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to come round and sing opera through your front door

And calling women who express gender critical beliefs ‘bigots’ has now been shown to be discriminatory and to constitute harassment. So you
might want to keep your misogynistic rhetoric to a minimum now. Do keep up.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
But what if Maya Forstater breaks into my house and sellotapes my eyelids shut while I'm asleep, and when I wake up I think I'm blind? Does the ruling let her do that? Because if it does it's a travesty of justice!!!!!! What is the world coming to?!?!?!?!?!

The ruling doesn't let her do that, it's specifically mentioned that she can't.

Justin really did sound shocked this morning. I wasn't paying the radio much attention until the change in tone. Maybe change is afoot at the Grauniad ( the UK bit, anyway)?

Apart from Emma Barnett's interview with Jo Phoenix this week I don't recall hearing/reading anything on the Beeb about this case or the madness of the ERCC tribunal evidence.

Dadjoke you appear to be suggesting that if a woman complains persistently about women's toilets at work being used by a male she would be guilty of harassment.

Do you have a source for that please as I do not believe this to have any basis in fact?

Nothing he says has a basis in fact.

I know, but the point is that he has an agenda here and if women take what he says as true it might prevent them from complaining about this.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic only gender reassignment. Given that it is also possible to exclude someone with a grc from same sex facilities when proportionate to meet a legitimate aim let alone someone without a grc I assume you agree that requiring females to share spaces with the opposite sex on the basis of gender identity could be harassment? Additionally, given that some religions and cultures do not permit the mixing of sexes in certain circumstances how do you ensure you avoid indirect discrimination on the basis of race or religion if you were to require that only gender and not sex is relevant?
Also as gender identity is not protected can a non-binary person really claim discrimination or harassment if a GC person expresses a contrary view?

Gosh isn’t it complex? It’s almost as if females have agency and rights all of their own that don’t derive from the world view of certain males.

The court cases are clear, you cannot misrepresent the law to justify silencing women who want their rights respected.

Sorry I haven't been following this case closely but does this new ruling mean that we can't be disciplined if we misgender someone in the workplace?

It depends and always has depended on the circumstances.

As ever, it depends on the context of each individual situation.

I think in the future though there will eventually be a carve out for non believers that we can conscientiously object to using wrong sex pronouns, FWIW.

If anyone is unsure about the ins and outs I suggest checking up on the EHRC website, reading SexMatters' website, or consulting a professional with expertise in the area.

'Dadjoke said it on Mumsnet' is not a sensible position to base HR decisions - or any decisions- on.

If a new colleague started who went by a female name and used female pronouns but was obviously a man would it be OK for me to use he/him etc due to my protected gender critical beliefs?

For that matter neither is ' ArabellaScott said it on Mumsnet'.

Read the source, the Equality Act, official guidance, consult a solicitor.

It depends.

I'd be interested to know too. In some circumstances I'd try to avoid using pronouns at all, but that could look a bit obvious.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/pronouns/