Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

[RethinkingLife]

A bracing read. I am still in a state of some despair about how long this will take. As several people have observed, in the last 10 days, the BBC (in common with other media) disseminated unscientific propaganda that male galactorrhea is better than mother’s milk, repeatedly called a deeply disturbed killer a woman while disdaining to acknowledge the alternate reality as a cat, and has publicly reprimanded Justin Webb for plain speaking that was probably helpful to many listeners.

What will it take to bring bigoted employers to heel? Part of the answer is time. During the past decade, the trans lobby has been stunningly successful in selling false analogies to HR departments: that separate toilets for men and women are like racial segregation; and that insisting people can change sex is “gay rights 2.0”.
Lazy, power-hungry HR managers and staff working in “EDI” (equality, diversity and inclusion) pronounce that the arc of the moral universe is bending towards denying sexual dimorphism, and relish imposing their will on others.
…
Imagine you’re an HR professional belatedly wondering if you’ve got the wrong end of the stick on the whole sex-gender thing. You might turn to A Practical Guide to Transgender Law by two barristers, Nicola Newbegin and transwoman Robin Moira White.
But that might not save you from serious missteps. The first edition, published before the binding Forstater judgment, enthusiastically endorsed the faulty lower court ruling. The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t.
Even before the recent string of judgments to the contrary, that was obvious nonsense. The law about freedom of belief expressly includes “manifestation”. And anyway, it takes but a moment’s thought to realise that the law can’t possibly concern beliefs that are never manifested, since it can’t reach inside the privacy of our heads.
…
At bottom, the mindset of the narcissistic identitarians joining in workplace witch-hunts is that of the Crusaders, who made converts at the point of a sword. They do not respect other people’s sovereign consciences, nor accept that their belief system is just one among many. And like the Crusaders, they need to be consigned to history.

https://thecritic.co.uk/restoring-sanity-takes-time/

Adding in a good read about the Meade and Phoenix rulings:

I am not the person to inform you what "transgender" means. There are plenty of sources for that. The definition of gender reassignment in law will do just fine for this purpose. It's in the EqA.

That wasn't what I was asking. That's a legal definition. I want a social or medical definition. And I want to know specifically what you think it is. What condition do you believe trans identifying people have?

Is it being literally 'born in the wrong body'?

Is it a fetish?

Is it a reaction to trauma, sexual abuse, poor mental health or internalised homophobia?

Or is it, in many cases, social contagion?

Or if you don't think it's any of these, what exactly do you think it is? I'm asking you for your opinion.

You know full well what I mean by "correct pronouns" - this faux ignorance is tiresome.

"Quite. The fact that someone has a belief that they have changed sex does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law."

You've conflated belief with another protected characteristic - in this case gender reassignment, which is not a "belief" in the EqA. It's being gender critical which is a belief, which depends on what definition of sex you use, which is a question you have chosen not to answer in the context of the EqA. The defintion of gender reassignment in the EqA makes is clear that, legally, you can change sex.

But yes, gender critical beliefs which don't manifest as harrasment, discrimination or conflict with their employers' legitimate requirements are permitted.

You know full well what I mean by "correct pronouns" - this faux ignorance is tiresome

I think you mean incorrect pronouns, but I wanted to check. As I said, Newspeak can be very confusing.

@OldCrone I've given you my defintion. Your questions no more apply to being transgender than they do being gay.

Some transgender people are fetishists, some have trauma, sexual absue, poor mental health or internalised homophobia. So do cisgender people, gay people and disabled people, And no, social contagion does not cause people to become transgender.

It's back to the 70-80s with "the lesbians are converting our girls," which I suspect you may be old enough to remember. Gay people were painted as fetishists, their identities pathologised, every crime a gay person committed was treated as an examplar, and they were treated as perverts and paedophiles. People objected to sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with them .This anti-trans panic is no different, and the very same groups which have always targetted LGBT people are using ant-trans activists as useful idiots to implement their agenda.

You've conflated belief with another protected characteristic - in this case gender reassignment, which is not a "belief" in the EqA.

No I haven't.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment just gives people the right not to be discriminated against because of their PC.

It doesn't give them the right to impose their belief that they have changed sex on other people who don't share their belief and force them to participate in that belief.

Holding a belief in gender ideology is not the same as having the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

@DadJoke sorry to hear that your daughter was ill and glad to hear that she is better.

Thanks for your extensive explanation of where we are on discrimination in the workplace. I do have a few issues:

She criticises A Practical Guide to Transgender Law, which was based on the law as it then stood before Forstater ETA, for reflecting the law as it stood before the Forstarter ETA. She then confuses "manifesting" a belief with being able to proselytize at work - an error in law. Obviously, when your beliefs come into conflict with work practices which impact your belief, then "manifestation" becomes important.

Really? She actually criticises the updated version. "The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t." Also, there is no evidence that Maya Forstater was proselytising (converting another to your beliefs) or that Helen Joyce is arguing that it is allowed.

*"In order to count as a “manifestation” within the meaning of Article 9, the act in question must be intimately linked to the religion or belief. An example would be an act of worship or devotion which forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form. However, the manifestation of religion or belief is not limited to such acts; the existence of a sufficiently close and direct nexus between the act and the underlying belief must be determined on the facts of each case. In particular, there is no requirement on the applicant to establish that he or she acted in fulfilment of a duty mandated by the religion in question"

It's the objectionable manifestation of the belief which can cause discrimination.

"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."*

I assume that this is a quote. Who or what are you quoting?

"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Again, who or what are you quoting?

*It's this last clause which is where the conflict arises.

The Forstater ETA set a very low bar for Grainger, and gender critical beliefs meet this threshold, as is lack of belief in structural racism and refusal to marry gay people.*

Is this a documented fact, your opinion or someone else's opinion?

"To establish that holding particular beliefs in respect of transgender persons per se falls foul of the Grainger test part V, it now appears to be necessary to shown that the belief is an equivalent of Nazism or totalitarianism, such that transgender persons should be not afforded the general rights and protections of other citizens"

Again, who or what are you quoting?

Employers are obliged to make reasonable accommodations for people with protected beliefs. Excluding a category of person who is permitted in space because of your beliefs would not be a reasonable accommodation. For example, forcing trans women to use men's bathrooms in the work place because another employee is gender critical would be discrimination against transgender people. A reasonable accommodation would be, for example, to provide a single user cubicle for anyone to use, including the transgender person.

No argument from me. This is exactly what my employer does. Although, on a previous thread, you posted that this would be unlawful.

No one can be forced to provide their pronouns at work, but not using the correct pronouns for colleagues and service users can be discriminatory (Mackereth). The fact that someone has a belief does not give them the right to treat other people in a manner that conflicts with their employer’s legitimate requirements and the law.

can be discriminatory. This is not the same as will be discriminatory. DWP in the case of Mackereth reasonably required the use of preferred pronouns for their clients who would need to believe that their assessor had a respectful attitude towards them.

However, every ET or court case is highly dependent on circumstances.
We need more case law on what is legitimate and proportionate, and what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination.

What is it with your obsession with "legitimate and proportionate"? This meaningless phrase is not used anywhere in the EA2010.

This can put employers in a very difficult position. If, for example, your diversity policy supports LGBT people, and one of your employees in a private capacity pubically posts legal but homophobic or transphobic comments based on a protected belief, and people threaten to boycott your company, you are in somewhat of a bind.

Any employer that has concerns over employees' private SM content should place restrictions in the employment contract. Otherwise they have no control on how employees use it.

@JanesLittleGirl

Really? She actually criticises the updated version. "The second grudgingly acknowledged that yes, gender-critical beliefs were protected, but claimed that “manifesting” them — letting others know you held them — wasn’t." Also, there is no evidence that Maya Forstater was proselytising (converting another to your beliefs) or that Helen Joyce is arguing that it is allowed.

She ALSO criticises the updated version. Helen choice describes "manifesting" as "letting others know you held them." Proselytizing was perhaps a bit strong, and Forstater won in part because she said she would not impose her gender critical views and respect peoples' pronouns.

The Forstater ETA set a very low bar for Grainger, and gender critical beliefs meet this threshold, as is lack of belief in structural racism and refusal to marry gay people.

This is my view based on two court cases and Forstarter. Margaret Jones won her appeal after she was dismissed for refusing to marry gay people, and Sean Corby's view that "critical race theory is divisive because it portrays white people as racist," was upheld, though he views on feminism were not.

A reasonable accommodation would be, for example, to provide a single user cubicle for anyone to use, including the transgender person.

No argument from me. This is exactly what my employer does. Although, on a previous thread, you posted that this would be unlawful.

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

However, every ET or court case is highly dependent on circumstances.
We need more case law on what is legitimate and proportionate, and what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination.

What is it with your obsession with "legitimate and proportionate"? This meaningless phrase is not used anywhere in the EA2010.

Specifically a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." with regard to people with the protected characterstic of gender reassignment being exluding from single-sex spaces. "Legitimate and proportionate" is just shorthand.

So, you might have a legimate aim (accommodating gender critical beliefs) but the means to do so might not be proportionate (stopping transgender people using the loo which matches their gender.)

More case law around this would be welcome.

Any employer that has concerns over employees' private SM content should place restrictions in the employment contract. Otherwise they have no control on how employees use it.

This is possible, but can be quiet difficult. If someone asked you to sign a contract stating that you wouldn't express gender critical views (eg trans women are not women) on your public social media, it could be quite hard to enforce.

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

Translation:

I mean, the man would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the man would have to use another facility.

But there's no conflict with women's rights.

You were quick on the report button there @DadJoke .

I assume that was the d word that got my post deleted.

I didn't report you or see your post.

There is a conflict between gender critical beliefs and transgender rights. There's no conflict with women's rights.

That's only true if you think transgender women are women. The essence of gender critical views is that transgender people are not women but men who prefer to adopt a "feminine" presentation. Their "identity" as women is a belief, not a matter of biological fact.

Your questions no more apply to being transgender than they do being gay.

My questions about what transgender means?

Let's see.

What does gay mean? Answer: a person is gay if they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

What does transgender mean? Answer: a person is transgender if they are trying to escape past trauma by pretending to be the opposite sex.

Or: a person is transgender if they are gay but think it's wrong to be gay and it would be better if they pretended to be the opposite sex.

Or: a person is transgender if he is a man who is aroused by the thought himself as a woman.

I'd like you to explain what you think makes transgenderism real, rather than an escape mechanism, a fetish or in the case of many teenage girls, just another social contagion.

Readers note: It is a misogynistic act to tell women that there are no conflicts with 'women's rights' when female single sex spaces are no longer as expected, single sex spaces but have become mixed sex spaces.

I think it is quite important to remember that when someone shows you who they are, you take notice.

Still waiting patiently to hear what rights transgender people don't have that the rest of us do.

If it is not having the right to use facilities of the opposite sex, then I'm in the same boat too.

Fucking hell. We're ALL oppressed 😭😭😭

Do you truly believe that allowing males to use women only spaces has no effect on the rights of women to have a single sex space?

You said that a man should be able to use the women's loos, and any woman who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the man would have to use another facility.

How can you suggest that this isn't an attack on the rights of women to have a single sex space?

In that case I'll try again without the d word.

Some transgender people are fetishists, some have trauma, sexual absue, poor mental health or internalised homophobia.

Since we agree that these are the causes of trans identification, don't you think it would be better for those vulnerable people whose trans identification is due to trauma, sexual abuse, poor mental health or internalised homophobia to get help for those issues rather than encourage their belief that they need to alter their bodies?

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

Yet another example of how gender ideology is simply men's rights activism by another name.

Indeed.

It has clearly been written by a poster who actually has absolutely no lived experience as a female person and who has little idea of what facilities a female person needs when they want to use a single sex toilet. Male people only ever think that women go to use a toilet to pee. They have no fucking idea. So therefore to them, of course any male who wishes to should use a female toilet. Because male people have decided what female people need the toilet for and have decided that other male people should have the priority.

What I have never seen on MN ever, was one of these male posters who are extreme trans activists (as opposed to other male posters, including trans posters, who have told us that they will not use female toilets and respect female people's needs) ever start or support a campaign to make male toilets more inclusive and safe for all male people to use.

There is a conflict between gender critical beliefs and transgender rights. There's no conflict with women's rights.

Of course there is a conflict, @DadJoke , please stop denying that women's rights as based on their sex and transwomen's 'rights' as based on their feelings, are not in direct conflict with each other. It is so tiresome when people deny reality.

But thank you for stating what the discrimination of women could be in the workplace. So women should have some rights left by employers providing single occupancy toilets. This is still discrimination though, as women have just one single occupance toilet, and men & transwomen have multiple toilets to choose from, leading to women having to wait longer.

I would also argue that demanding people to use preferred pronouns in discrimination for people with certain disabilities, who sometimes struggle with remembering this kind of information. So what should an employer do then?

Of course women, and men, can be politically active in a variety of ways on social media in a private capacity. Even with points of views other people disagree with. Human rights laws give people, even employees, the right to a private life and trying to fire people would again be in breach of these laws. Yes, even religious, BLM, womens rights, JSO, antifa, xenophobic, homophobic, whatever statements.
But in Maya's case, let's face it, was commenting on a public consultation from the UK government. How any employer could think they could fire someone over something like that is beyond me.

If I use the correct pronouns I use the ones that reflect my reality.

Thats sex.

She ALSO criticises the updated version. Helen choice describes "manifesting" as "letting others know you held them."

That was HJ quoting A Practical Guide to Transgender Law second edition.

I mean, the transgender woman would be able to use the women's loos, and anyone who objected could use the single user cubicle, not that the trans woman would have to use another facility.

Do you have one of those sets of glasses that turn everything upside down? Where I work, biological women can use either the women's toilet or the male/ female. Biological men can use the men's toilet or the male/female. Anyone can use the male/female. This plan was signed off by our magic circle lawyers.

Specifically a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." with regard to people with the protected characterstic of gender reassignment being exluding from single-sex spaces. "Legitimate and proportionate" is just shorthand.

Invented by you in order to diminish the actual requirements under the EA2010.

This is possible, but can be quiet difficult. If someone asked you to sign a contract stating that you wouldn't express gender critical views (eg trans women are not women) on your public social media, it could be quite hard to enforce.

Perfect misunderstanding. The contract, or more likely Ts&C's, wouldn't refer to gender critical views, gender affirmative views, political views etc. It would restrict employees from expressing contentious opinions on SM. It is very common.

I would still like the references that you appeared to quote.

(I'm a lesbian.) I've written m/m, m/f, f/f and gen fic (no romance).About 65% of my fics are either gen or m/m, and about 35% are either m/f or f/f. So not such a massive difference, but I do think I read a greater share of m/m and gen than that 65% it represents in terms of my writing. This is in various fandoms, only a few works are from Harry Potter.

For me, a large part of the cause is that in many fandoms for which I write for, there are many more male characters and they are more central. This makes it more likely that some of them will spark my interest.

More generally, some of the character types I like in fiction are more likely to be created as male characters than as female ones. For this reason, I do actually quite like 'always the other sex AUs' in some fandoms (actually not HP), but I'm frequently disappointed, because often I dislike the choices made and feel they tend to go for quite gender essentialist takes.

In terms of the m/f I read, this tends to be more heavily plot-based than the fics I read in other categories - in m/m and f/f I have a greater interest in some romance than in m/f. In other kinds of media, I'm also rarely interested in the heterosexual romance presented. So I think some of it also comes from that, coupled with the fact that in many fandoms, m/m occupies a much larger space than f/f. Actually, some of my work is on background female characters in very m/m dominated fandoms, but then I'm often nearly the only person writing them.

But as I said in a previous comment, I do think it can be unfortunate and a bit harmful to constantly centre the imagined male experience. But the extent of this varies and it's also a broader cultural problem than just fandom.

We do not agree any such thing, and you clearly aren’t engaging in good faith. To be clear, some gender critical people are fetishists, some have trauma, sexual absue, poor mental health or internalised homophobia