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?

This. There are things being conveniently conflated and we're reaching the point of being able to separate them out.

There is a difference between holding a sincere belief that some people are born in the wrong body and that their sense of gender identity to them is more important than their biological sex, and a sincere belief of requiring others to not mention or have resources or facilities for their biological sex because that existentially threatens the chosen reality of those with the belief of being born in the wrong body.

Two different things. One, very likely WORIAD. There's issues around the stereotypes and the disempowerment of women, and whether in law anyone should be able to identify as something they are in reality not, but those are not the big issues that are leading into court rooms.

All the cases, all the issues, are about the attempt to control other people's beliefs and to eradicate heresy of other beliefs being permitted. That's the part not likely to work as WORIAD because that belief that there is only one right way and that is that women's sex based rights are wrong and should be abandoned in favour of gender identity, is unable to coexist peacefully with other beliefs and other people's rights.

It's rather like the slow boiling issues of what behaviours and actions and needs are an intrinsic part of a protected characteristic and must be expected, catered for and accepted as part of them, and which are the behaviours and actions and needs that are simply unacceptable under law, in workplaces etc, regardless of the protected characteristics of the person doing them. And where the line is between the two. It's going to have to be separated out and looked at because the conflation is becoming a problem, and is arguably a useful one enabling some troubling events and actions. And abuse of others.

Also, is this saying that active disbelief is illegal?

Thanks for clarifying Jellysaurus. It's not saying that fortunately. The Tribunal said that Maya's lack of belief was effectively the same as GC beliefs, and that any such lack of belief was not WORIADS. The EAT said the Tribunal was wrong. A lack of belief is not the same as a positive belief that the opposite is true (e.g. a lack of belief in climate change is not necessarily the same as a positive belief that climate change is not real: someone might just not have given it much thought or might think further evidence is needed). The EAT also held that a lack of belief is not subject to the WORIADS test. In other words, there are no beliefs that everyone must hold.