How is a BWORIAD defined?

[JellySaurus]

If the practice of a belief requires the participation of non-believers, is it worthy of respect in a democratic society?

I would say it cannot, by definition, be considered ‘worthy of belief in a democratic society’. Forcing people to pretend they hold a belief, or to submit to it, is far from democratic.

Society has been twisted by transgenderism over the past decade. It’s quite frightening how we’ve got used to using wrong pronouns and accepting men’s ‘right’ to intrude into women’s spaces, for fear of aggression or losing our jobs.

Grainger test!

Be good to see that happen.

Hermione Grainger?

'The leading authority on what amounts to a protected philosophical belief is the Grainger case which says that, to be protected, a Claimant’s belief must:

be genuinely held;
not just an opinion or point of view;
be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
be worthy of respect in a democratic society, and not incompatible with human dignity.

The Forstater case (mentioned below) has emphasised that only very extreme views will fall foul of point 5, and some views which are offensive or disturbing, will nonetheless be protected.'

https://www.btoemploymentlaw.co.uk/protection-of-philosophical-beliefs/

There's not all that much precedent, I think. The point in the OP is whether genderism is “incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others”.'

It could feasibly go either way, and in my limited understanding would only have impact another cases if it were an ETA.

As Maya's was.

But what does the fifth point in the Grainger case mean?

For that matter, what level of cogency and coherence is 'a certain level'? How are cogency and coherence defined or understood with respect to belief?

Cohesion, not coherence.

I tend to believe that the version of GII which is most prevalent is sufficiently extreme to fail the Grainger test - incoherence, removal of rights of women and children, and the requirement that other people perform it or profess belief in it among other problems.

I do however think that GII-lite - believing in a gendered soul, or that you can be born in the wrong body - which accepts the material reality of sex and its importance, would stand a much better chance.
It's arguably not important, doesn't come with any kind of moral code or philosophical world view, but I don't think that would disqualify GII lite from being WORIADS.

I don't know - there might be a clue in the Forstater judgement? It's probably a "reasonable person" sort of test.
The bar is very low, though.

Surely most socially successful beliefs require the participation of non-believers. Belief in the equality of women is a rather modern idea, yet we have laws requiring all of society to participate in this idea.

Other religions have extreme versions but the difference is no-one says "Unless you (women) cover up completely and never leave the house, I can't express my Muslim beliefs. You are preventing me from being a Muslim."

That aspect will be the problem.

The article I posted offers a few recent cases.

Tbh it seems arbitrary and vague and woolly to me.

I'm not very convinced by much of the law in this area, whether or not it supports my views!

I'm on the phone using one finger but...

No legitimate rights are removed from men by women being equal under the law.
We don't require everyone to participate in the idea that women are equal human beings, or to support feminism.
Feminists don't claim that Matt Walsh or Andrew Tate holding or expressing the views they do prevents us from being feminists.

In light of the EA, Forstater and the SC ruling, I would say we’re at the point legally where believing in gender identity ideology generally (that is, believing that everyone, whether they realise it or not, has a gendered soul and expressing one’s own interpretation of this through one’s own appearance) is implicitly deemed WORIAD, but that taking TWAW literally and imposing that on others obviously isn’t.

I think if transactivists try to bring test cases to push this point, TWAW will end up being confirmed as not being coherent as it necessarily depends on others colluding in the belief against their will to make any sense on a practical level.

Furthermore, if they continued to push the argument that TWAW through the courts, they would likely be forced to confront the lack of cogency of the belief that TWAW itself, and the whole notion of gender ideology would topple culturally.

I agree in the main, but I'm not sure that we are at the stage where GII has been deemed a protected belief. Not subscribing to GII is protected, that was established in Forstater, but it doesn't follow from that that GII is itself a protected belief.

Does a belief in GI require others to agree though? They WANT that, but the fact that I know IW is a man, doesn’t prevent IW from regarding themself as a biological female.

What you are describing is what I call GI-lite.

Extreme GII - mainstream GII as promulgated by transactivists - insists (for example) that to assert their right to be trans, MCWs must be allowed to remove the rights of women to privacy, dignity and safety. Their claimed rights are predicated on the destruction of women's rights.

On what basis would a mere belief in gender identity ideology not be protected?

The only reason a court ruled that GC beliefs were protected under the EA was because the defendant had argued that they should be allowed to discriminate against MF on the basis that GC beliefs are inherently bigoted.

We don’t usually need court approval before we believe something - it was only because the Thought Police came along and tried to stop a woman saying things they didn’t like that a court had to explicitly confirm that GC beliefs are protected.

So there is a presumption that a belief in GII (the version I’ve described, sans the TWAW bit) is protected, unless for some reason (and I can’t think of one), it is ruled otherwise in the future.

Additionally, the concept of gender reassignment in the EA rests on the assumption that some people believe in GII, and the fact the EA (and the GRA) provides that people practising GII should be protected and enjoy certain accommodations demonstrates that the law acknowledges that believing in GII a protected belief (as are the vast majority of beliefs an individual is free to hold and express).

We have other laws, including other protections under the EA (like sex and sexual orientation) to combat the inherent misogyny, homophobia and other damaging features of GII more generally, and as people become bolder in using these where the rights of GI ideologues and women or gay people intersect, I think we’ll reach a place of balance in terms of rights without having to curb people’s freedom to believe in as many genders as they like.

You're basically saying what I've been saying about the difference between GII-lite and extreme GII. I think GII lite - a belief in gendered souls, for example - would be WORIADS.

Where we differ is that I don't think it has been decided explicitly, and can't be inferred from the fact that disbelief in it is protected, that GII in any of its forms is WORIADS and a protected belief.

I think it can be inferred from the existence of the GRA and from the fact that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in the EA, though!

(again, not the TWAW bit, just the belief in GI-lite, as you call it)

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic. Gender Identity is not a protected characteristic. There were "trans" men before gender identity was even invented.

Where we differ is that I don't think it has been decided explicitly, and can't be inferred from the fact that disbelief in it is protected, that GII in any of its forms is WORIADS and a protected belief.

How can it not be, when the expression of that belief is a Protected Characteristic under the EA?

Yet can GI beliefs or ideology be described as having cogency or coherence? Without those aspects, how can they qualify as protected beliefs?

The idea that you can believe what you like but you cannot act as you like in the expression of that belief is reasonable. 'Your' acts include requiring non-believers' actions.

Unless the EA was written with 'old-style' transexuals in mind, people with severe dysphoria and a belief centred on themself, rather than people latching into an ideological neo-religion.