Balance and belief: how should HR manage the gender critical debate?

[IwantToRetire]

For HR professionals looking to keep up with the latest employment law developments, it’s hard not to ignore the rising tide of employment tribunals involving gender-critical beliefs.

According to the government’s tribunal decisions portal, there have been 14 decisions in the space of less than two years, and several of them have made national news headlines.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/belief-discrimination-gender-critical-debate/

This was published a few days ago, and thought at the time maybe not for FWR.

But have now seen it being shared by a number of "GC" groups, so posting now (not to be a sheep!), but wondered if this is a positive example of how at least those in HR are seeing there is an issue. (Although they seem more worried about legal costs than any committment to women's sex based rights.)

That's very interesting, particularly as one of the people quoted is from Shakespeare Martineau who are involved in the OU investigation.

Seems like the message is getting through.

This quote from the Martineau Shakespeare lawyer is interesting:

“The way the Equality Act is drafted leaves it open that many types of belief are worthy of protection, as long as they meet the five-step test that shows they meet the requirement,” he adds. “So while supporting Rangers might not be considered a belief worthy of protection, a number of beliefs such as those around gender or veganism tick the boxes comfortably.”

It’s slippery. By generalising by saying “around gender” it implies both POV are protected. As far as I am aware no one has tested the gender identity/ideology perspective in the courts yet to determine whether it also meets the Grainger test to be given the status of a protected belief.

If I had a colleague who was convinced that he was a dolphin and insisted that we use his "ack/acks" pronouns, he'd either get sacked, sectioned, or (unlikely) asked to prove that he wasn't taking the p*ss.

That seems fair to me, and it wouldn't be seen as discrimination either.

I've worked in HR for 20 years and we've been able to see the issue for a very long time. I made sure when I moved jobs I joined a GC HR team, there are more of them out there than you probably realise, not every company subscribes to the trans nonsense 🤷‍♀️

I am sure at least some of the gender ideology perspective is a protected belief too, hr are legitimately (from a legal perspective) having to balance the two. Which all these cases show they are doing badly.

... By generalising by saying “around gender” it implies both POV are protected. As far as I am aware no one has tested the gender identity/ideology perspective in the courts ...

I think this is one of the reasons I thought this article wasn't that positive for confirming being GC is "worthy of respect".

The so called legal experts show that they are just seeing it as a legal game. And may even not be that well grounded in the law.

As quote points out, gender identity is not recognised as a protected characteristic under the EA. The EA by and large deals with facts ie sex, race, disabillity, age all biological realities. Religious beliefs are recognised. Even gender reassignment is about those who have undergone reassignment or are on the pathway to that end.

Its bad enough that "legal experts" dont know what the current law is, but also dont even know within current public discussion that the issue of identifying is contested.

It seems pretty legally clear to me, and covers that beliefs are protected by the equality act. It didn’t say gender identity is a protected characteristic.
navigating the legal game is exactly the point of the article. They are writing to guide employers on their responsibilities to avoid negative legal consequences, not to give impassioned opinion on morality. I cannot get worked up about that, it’s important for employers.

It seems pretty legally clear to me, and covers that beliefs are protected by the equality act.

Are you saying the EA covers "beliefs" that relate to a life stye choice.

It didn’t say gender identity is a protected characteristic.

I didn't say it did. I said that is the issue. On one level the EA clear lays out the protected characteristics.

After that everything is some vague fashion statement of the time.

Sex is a protected characteristic because it is a biological fact.

I dont think people claiming to give "legal advice" should be so sloppy in their comments.

The idea that HR departments have time to debate with each other and their employing organisation whether someone who believes fridays are always bad luck so they shouldn't have to come into work, is worthy of respect is just absurd.

The court cases are about how employers have chosen (because of caucusing) to discriminate against women.

As we all know society doesn't and would accept someone who claims because they identify as Black are therefore Black.

That is why I thought the article isn't all it is made out to be, because it has swallowed the line that being an actual biological woman is a "belief" not a fact.

What the article and supposedly "professionals" should do is not be swayed by current fads.

What next, litter trays in the species neutral toilets for furries?

I am sure at least some of the gender ideology perspective is a protected belief too

We can't know that until its tested in court. But one of the tests is whether it attains a level of cogency, seriousness and cohesion. Which I don't think is guaranteed.

Yes, it's not simply the case that if one belief is WORIADS then the opposite must be considered to be as well.

Flat earth beliefs aren't generally accepted on the grounds that its the opposite of believing the earth is a sphere, which is of course accepted.

It's not about 'balance' (looking at you, BBC), its about whether the beliefs are serious, sincere and coherent.