Is believing in transgenderism a protected belief?

[JellySaurus]

Not believing that you are the opposite sex, but believing that it is possible for a person to be the opposite sex to what they are/to change sex/to be 'in the wrong body' etc? Is that belief a protected belief? Is it recognised as a belief WORIAD?

I find men think that mansplaining is a protected belief, does that clarify the situation?

LOL

Socially, yes. Legally, no.

@JellySaurus to answer your question as far as I am aware the Gender Identity Belief has not been tested at EAT.

The WORIDS test is just part of the requirements for GI Belief to become a protected belief.

Any claimant would have to provide a coherent explanation of their GI belief and why they believe it.

Watching barristers like Ben and Naomi cross examine GI believers I am not sure if anyone could provide a coherent argument that encapsulated the GI belief.

This has started coming up. Helen Joyce covered the subject a couple of weeks ago:

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-70/

Paywalled, but her conclusion is that the a true believer could fail the test:

"So when I say a believer in gender identity might have a belief that is NWORIADS, I’m talking about someone who says gender identity is the one true test of whether someone is a man or a woman, and really means it. [...] Such people hold a belief that’s inherently rights-destroying, and incompatible with the dignity of others."

Someone who follows through on the consequences, including men in women's sports, men in women's prisons, and forcing men upon women in rape crisis centres, etc. All the horrific things the belief makes people push for.

And this was mentioned in passing in the ERCC case - Naomi Campbell did put it to a witness that it was in fact gender identity ideology that was not WORIADS. I think she might have been inspired by that piece.

Transcript here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=37&reply=132427996

And MN discussion continues from there and into thread 3.

That would be excellent! How could it be tested?

A person might claim that they were discriminated against if they were rejected for a role that involved safeguarding, such as a residential camp leader, because they believed that select groups of males and females should be allowed to sleep in each others' dorms, or play contact sport on the opposite-sex team.

Any other scenarios?

I wish that the woman gaslighted by the NHS for a year over being raped by a male patient placed on a women's ward, could sue the person responsible for claiming that he was a woman, as well as the person who decided that policy. Make them justify it. Not just say "Orders."

Once GIB is tested and proven NotWORIAD, the whole "I should get this special status because I believe it about myself" unravels.

Its not been tested but it will be a protected belief. If believing in a big beardy man in the sky, not believing in evolution or any number of other crackers things are then Genderism will definitely be protected.

A person might claim that they were discriminated against if they were rejected for a role that involved safeguarding, such as a residential camp leader, because they believed that select groups of males and females should be allowed to sleep in each others' dorms, or play contact sport on the opposite-sex team.

Just believing that wouldn't be problem. It's refusing to give women the choice of female-only provision, and lying to them or concealing the truth about the presence of males.

There are separate things at play here - women can claim effective sex discrimination by failure to provide female-specific provision, forcing providers to provide it. If an employee then refuses to provide that provision, which their employer is asking for, then at that point we find out if they can claim constructive dismissal due to being compelled to provide female-only services, when that's against their belief.

We'd want to be looking at cases like people refusing to be provide services because of their religion. Doctors not wanting to perform abortions, chefs not wanting to work with meat, sort of thing.

People not wanting to provide female-specific provision because of their beliefs is like that. How far can they refuse to provide service, and how much leeway can we give them.

As I understand it, the general answer is that individuals can't be compelled to do something against their conscience personally, but they can't make the organisation comply. A doctor may not have to carry out abortions, but they can't demand the whole organisation they're working in not carry any out, and clearly you couldn't have the entire staff refusing.

In these cases it's not just individuals doing personal conscientious objection, it's forced compliance organisation wide. That's what would make it fail the WORIADS test.

Naomi Campbell mentioned this in court last week. It has not been tested, but as pp says, the issue that may get in its way is its fundamental intolerance of others' rights and beliefs, and the belief that these should be subordinated or removed. It is not a belief that will permit living alongside those of other beliefs: it requires sinners to be punished.

For example it will not permit those who can only access female only facilities to have them alongside mixed sex provisions, which would be a solution that permitted equality and access for all.

Sex is your biology…
Gender is how society labels or identifies or categorises sex from externals…

sex is immutable
gender is automatically fluid and societal based - there is clear evidence of change through history

therefore technically it is not possible to be transgender as you can’t trans something which is defined fluidly…

conceptually it is possible to be trans-sex because there are two rigid states so conceptually if you were one and are now the other then you would have transitioned, however biologically it is impossible to be trans-sex, you are what you were born and hormones and surgery can’t change that…

this is why it is referred to as trans-gender, because for people to call themselves trans-sex is immediately disprovable whereas gender being fluid and subject to whim of society, you can be whatever you want…

it is also why the word trans is used - if genuine transition took place from eg man to woman then the end result would not be transwoman it would simply be woman.

eg if you transition from London to Paris, you are not in trans-Paris, you are now in Paris. The very use of the word trans-gender and its construct from trans and gender demonstrates that there is no finished transition and it is not from one biological sex to another (because that is impossible) it is a definition that states that someone’s feeling about how society identifies them / the sexes is in flux - ie a mental health discussion not a biological one.

based on all of that the actual beliefs of someone in the trans-gender camp are valid - however they have nothing to do with underlying sex. Therefore there should be no conflict between true trans-gender beliefs and GC (which should ideally be Sex Critical not Gender Critical!)

where it all goes wrong is that people conflate sex and gender which are clearly different (a man can wear pink and not become a woman!) and the whole raft of issues we are seeing currently are from those who themselves (deliberately?) misunderstand the technical meaning of trans-gender and argue that it means you can change sex (for clarity - you can’t!) - that mixed up view can be argued to not be an accurate trans-gender view and so even if trans-gender belief were protected, logically it would fail to include those who believe that immutable sex can be changed - I don’t see how you can protect a view which is biologically impossible!

In very generalised terms, the GC WORIAD is the protected 'right' to believe in the reality of sex and their own perceptions, alongside those who have other beliefs, and to not be molested or treated with discrimination through non participation in other beliefs.

In essence we have one position that says:

• You do you, I will do me, leave me and my rights and freedoms and language and resources/services/facilities alone and create additional parallel ones where needed so that you have equality of access, and we'll leave each other in peace.

The other position says:

• The existence of facilities, resources, language, rights and freedoms that remind of the reality of sex, or retain named resources for women on a sexed basis, limit my freedoms, reject my desire for my belief to be the only reality I encounter, and these must be eliminated.

It's fairly obvious really which one does not, for example, permit homosexuality to be openly expressed and lived, or permit accessibility for women not able due to their own protected characteristics, or in general permit other people's equality of consent, dignity and freedoms.

You do you, I will do me, leave me and my rights and freedoms and language and resources/services/facilities alone and create additional ones where needed so that you have equality of access, and we'll leave each other alone.

This is how other protected beliefs are dealt with.

But this is why I am asking about the belief of others, not of the person claiming a trans identity.

Thing its not been WORIAD tested, because nobody has brought a case of discrimination on the basis of GI. Presumably because discrimination has not occurred in the work place in the first place LOL

Gender identity belief should be protected under the Equality Act 2010. See paras 107-8 of the Forstater EAT decision:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

It shouldn't be WORIADS if no one can even articulate what it means.

Or have I missed something? Can anyone link to a coherent explanation?

(I am trying to put together a balanced PSHE lesson along the lines of "some people believe..." but it's really difficult to find something that Year 9 won't immediately rip to shreds!)

'The Claimant' being Maya Forstater?

Her accepting an untested claim does not, surely, define it in law?

Also, is this saying that active disbelief is illegal? Maya saying "I do not believe that TWAW" is OK, but had she said "TWAM" That would be unacceptable?

That's like claiming it's illegal for Jewish people to say "Jesus was not the Messiah".

'The Claimant' being Maya Forstater?
Yes.

Her accepting an untested claim does not, surely, define it in law?
No, but it is clear IMO that the EAT agreed with her. They held that the Tribunal had wrongly dismissed her arguments about lack of belief in gender identity. If gender identity belief wasn't covered by the EA 2010 then a lack of belief in it wouldn't be covered either, and the EAT's decision wouldn't make sense.

In any event, there doesn't seem to be any good reason IMO why it would not qualify for protection. The bar is not that high. It has to be reasonably coherent but the quote at para 107 provides a pithy and coherent summary. It doesn't have to be correct, logical or supported by evidence to qualify. It doesn't matter if it's sexist and/or offensive to many to qualify (there is always the issue that beliefs cannot be manifested in a way that amounts to harassment of others, but that's separate from whether holding the belief and manifesting it in a non-harassing way is covered).

Maya has written some good stuff on this here at para 118 onwards of her witness statement: https://www.forstater.com/on-the-question-of-belief/ She's not a lawyer obviously but her lawyers will have helped her draft it and IMO she understands this area well.

Also, is this saying that active disbelief is illegal? Maya saying "I do not believe that TWAW" is OK, but had she said "TWAM" That would be unacceptable?

No. I am not sure which bit you are looking at here, but in basic terms what it's saying is that the Tribunal was wrong to dismiss the arguments that Maya was fired for a lack of belief in gender identity by saying that a lack of belief in gender identity was effectively the same as GC beliefs, and that the WORIAD test should apply to lack of belief too.

I think you mean Naomi Cunningham not Naomi Campbell. Not being picky it just made my laugh.

You're right, I do. Sorry. Not nearly enough coffee on board yet.

I started it. Sorry...

I’ve done it too at home lol

Surely anyone can believe anything they want, including that the world is flat or that God is a flying spaghetti monsters, but it's more about how you express said belief in the workplace etc.

Example if you make your workplace a very hostile environment because you dislike the fact your colleagues don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster (as an example/analogy) and make your colleagues feel uncomfortable and offended to be around you then that could lead to termination.

Going around putting up stickers and posters expressing hate towards non-believers of the spaghetti monster could be seen as hate (as well as vandalism if you don't have permission to stick things up on property that isn't yours).

I posted this on another thread yesterday.

I think belief in GI would fail on Criterion 4 (of the Grainger test)

(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

IANAL (edited to add) but I've yet to see/hear a GIbeliever produce a cohesive (or coherent) case.

I am not sure which bit you are looking at here

This:

I think it will be protected but the key point will be that you can't force it onto others either. So you can believe in gender identity but you may not be able to force others to comply with it.

Which given that pronouns are compelled speech that aren't used by the subject, might be problematic.

It would be fair to argue that someone who felt that being forced to use compelled pronouns was harmful to themselves because sex and language matters and it could cause various safeguarding related issues might be justified to not use them and it was impinging on their own freedom of speech. I can see it been deemed as a really fine line but a line nevertheless; It can't be harassment to state biologically related things and to refuse to engage in worship but it would be harassment to repeatedly shit stir on it though. So only normal every day conversations would be ok and absolutely no piss taking would be my thought on this as being the natural thing.

Whether a court would uphold this, I don't know but it would definitely be interesting and I think it's one that will get tested sooner or later especially since companies and organisations are sending out directives requiring staff to declare their pronouns.

This would be even more fuzzy than some of the more common contentious issues going on to police and enforce but i don't know that a court could easily maintain the concept of free speech and still rule in favour of compelled pronouns.

For me I do think it's important because it is about power and control rather than identity and my suspicion is that if people are told it's ok not to go along with compelled speech some of the attraction to pronouns will disappear anyway as the a huge part of the point of them from advocates disappears.

For me pronouns are important to my own identity and to my own sex: references to having a brother are about my relationships and my own identity - I did not have the experience of growing up with a sister. Likewise this might matter hugely to someone who has a specific religion because of their need to use single sex spaces etc etc.

I don't see why you should be forced to adhere to a belief structure (pronouns) which you feel (with good reason and evidence) may have a significant negative affect on a protected characteristic.

Recognising someone may wish to be known as Daisy and being respectful of Daisy, may not mean you have to call Daisy 'she'. You may allow them respect in various other ways but they may not force you to comply with their beliefs.

Certainly the use of forced pronouns in a rape case - which we know has happened, is a serious cause for concern for precisely these reasons.