Belief that ‘white middle-aged men’ have an ‘unseen advantage’ at work falls under equality laws, tribunal judge rules

[IwantToRetire]

Believing in the notion that white men have an “unseen advantage” because of their gender and race is a legally protected belief, akin to veganism or gender-critical feminism.

The ruling comes in the case of self-proclaimed feminist Misti Kilburn, a senior HR manager suing a global manufacturing company for belief and sex discrimination.

Employment Judge George Alliott said: “It was clear to us, and we find, that [Ms Kilburn] does genuinely believe that white middle-aged men have an inherent advantage, in particular in the workplace, and that women remain disadvantaged, in particular in the workplace.

“We accept that many would subscribe to the view that in the workplace white middle-aged men have an advantage and women are disadvantaged.”

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/04/white-male-privilege-belief-protected-discrimination/

Can also be read at https://archive.is/sJBJk

This.

Quite.

Men with trans identities are going to have to learn to tolerate that there are women who need single sex spaces, that those spaces are not for them, and however offensive they find it, they are not in control of those women or the arbiter of what those women are entitled to, and are not entitled to access and use those non consenting women.

And since we all know by now there are plenty of such men who just won't even be willing to attempt this, it's increasingly looking like there are going to have to be created consequences. Enforcement is a part of law, particularly protecting the rights of the law abiding against the law breaking and over entitled.

It's interesting to consider vegetarian vs vegan. Vegan won protection vegetarianism didn't. One of the reasons was vegetarianism wasn't a coherent belief system ie people were vegetarians for health reasons as well as ethical.
I think this is where it will fail.
You might as well claim tall people have an advantage and I'm short.

But the "ethics" of veganism are just as shonky.

Some vegans shun cereal products because they are pollinated by bees. some eat roadkill.

Or :

The ethics of veganism are not monolithic, and individuals may interpret and apply vegan principles in different ways based on their personal beliefs and circumstances. What is consistent, however, is the underlying commitment to reducing harm to animals and promoting more ethical and sustainable food choices.

Some vegans shun cereal products because they are pollinated by bees.

Some vegans are stupidly ignorant as cereals are wind pollinated.

Generally that's a given.

But then shutting yourself off from your intended food sources in the name of some supposed universal morality isn't really the greatest use of problem solving resource anyway.

Speaking solely for myself, I couldn't get a rizla between veganism and vegetarianism anyway. My interest in the differences isn't really a thing right now.

I want a new C5 reality series called "when ideological purity spirals get out of control".

It's a modern version of C4s 'Benefits street' where they follow round the battshittery, showing all the situations they get into.

Not sure if everyone read the whole article. I did post the link to the archive version.

But even in the few paragraphs I posted in the OP the court said:

“We accept that many would subscribe to the view that in the workplace white middle-aged men have an advantage and women are disadvantaged.”

And as there are statistics that show this is a fact not sure why anyone would challenge that.

Although do find it confusing, because not sure that believing is statistics (eg about the advantages that white men have) is suddenly being put forward as a proteted belief.

Any number of statistical reports show this to be true.

Is it that the woman concerned wasn't allowed to quote statistics?

Its very confusing.

The tribunal ultimately ruled that her views are protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010 meaning it is illegal to discriminate against her person because of it.

The judge said that although some might find her beliefs objectionable, they still qualify for legal protection. A full hearing will take place at a later date.

Maybe it is being put like this because a lot of white priviledge men no doubt promoted beyond their actual ability didn't like an uppity woman pointing out that their position in the company wasn't based on their actual worth but on the advantage of their sex and race.

Link to the judgement.
MsMKilburnvSensientFlavorsLLC_Others_3302208.2024_PPH_Judgment.pdf https://share.google/k9HDd2hdoy3eWrkki

I guess we'll have to wait for the tribunal to see how it fits into her case. I'm not sure how it can be applied. I'm having trouble seeing the difference to claiming sex discrimination.
I doubt it's a simple 'we don't want any crazy feminist nonsense here, we treat everyone the same'

I find this whole thing about "belief" very difficult to parse. Who bases their beliefs on nothing? Not many people. And why is "evidence" the standard for a rationally held belief? What about logic, or mathematics?

I'm not convinced it's really a coherent way of thinking about what people believe to be true.

In a way it's interesting, and I suppose could maybe go some way to recreating a balance.

For example, if a feminist is entitled to her beliefs about the patriarchy etc, in the workplace, is there any reason that a person who is a racial seperatist wouldn't have their beliefs protected? Or someone who thought that gay men shouldn't have kids, or whatever.

What I am really thinking about here is the way workplaces these days seem to think it is ok for them to impose their own moral/political views on employees. So things like wanting employees to be in Pride marches, or doing race anti-bias workshop, or, in one job I had, participating in a sort of indigenous spiritual meditation event.

If all of these kinds of various beliefs about social and political and spiritual stuff are protected, maybe employers would stop being able to inflict this kind of thing on their employees?

I think the differernce is that all (according to this claim) vegans are doing it for beliefs around the ethics of killing animals, even if they disagree on the details.

Whereas some vegetarians have wholly differernt motivations - they are ok with killing animals, it is just health issues they care about.

Though I think that's silly - some people are vegans for similar health reasons. And surely for both ethical vegans and vegetarians, it is a belief system, whatever reason some others have for being a vegetarian/vegan

I am totally bemused. I can understand a case being about discrimination because a woman felt that in an office white middle class men were always valued / paid more etc.. And that she or her legal team could probably get holds of lots of studies that would should this is a fact.

What I dont understand if how is this a belief.

Are statistics nor facts and instead a set of numbers you support because you belief they support your view of the world.

Or is it that her employer is saying she was difficult? a trouble maker, because she was forever going on about her "beliefs".

I am not saying this to be derogatory towards her, just really want to understand the arguements!

It’s not just about statistics, it’s about her worldview, which is basically intersectional feminism though it’s drawn narrowly in this case so that’s clearly the basis for the detriment she’s claiming. It’s not clear from this hearing which is just establishing, like Forstater, that she has grounds to bring a discrimination case. That will follow. The respondent obviously tried to get it struck out but wasn’t successful.

I know it isn't about statistics, but in fact statistics will show that what she is saying is a "belief" is a fact.

What is the point of introducing it as a belief when facts show it is a fact???!!!!

If she wins does this mean that in future any woman who has a case about being discriminated against a work because white middle class men always get preferred it wont be heard because she doesn't proclaim it as a "belief".

Which nobody has to do because it is a fact.

That’s not how the protected characteristic of belief works, as has been discussed countless times on here.

It looks to me like she’s claiming she was dismissed and victimised because of her feminist worldview and in particular this narrow framing of it.

You keep missing the point.

What function does it service to say this is a belief, when everyone knows it is a fact.

What is she hoping to achieve.

The fact that women are discriminated by men is why we have a sex discriminate act, now within the EA. ie it is already acknowledged.

What she is doing is pointless, and possiblely worse, if it means in the future any woman wanting to take a legal case for sex discrimination cant do it because unless it is based on the woman saying she has this as "a belief".

That is the issue. It isn'st a belief. It is a fact.

It is quite likely to be counter productive and having no point what so ever.

Try and explain what the value would be for women as a whole to have this as a protected belief.

Its not possible

Its nonsense.

Whoa, so many GCs will be upset by this, I can already hear Graham Linehan and the KF crew typing away in disgust 😂

Protected beliefs are nothing particularly special - most beliefs would be protected if tested in court..hell, even the belief that mediums are actually talking to the dead is a tested, protected belief. In my experience so many anti-trans activists conflate this with validity, something that it has very little relation to (as attested by so many thousands of biologists and medical experts).

This is a small win for actual feminists..sadly the historic win for women from just a week or two ago was mostly ignored by the people here.

Good luck with making religious people prove the facts of their belief.

Surely this protection simply assures your right to have deeply held beliefs and not be adversely treated because of them?

Seems reasonable to me. It doesn't say other people have to share your beliefs or act as if they do. They can still dispute your beliefs (respectfully) and state their own opposing beliefs. It's about tolerance, not acquiescence.

In my experience so many anti-trans activists conflate this with validity 🤣 Women's rights campaigners aren't the ones going round chanting "Trans Women Are Women! No debate!" and then demanding radical changes to the laws of the land, social practices, common language, education and science in order to validate that belief.

I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. This judgement is not relevant for cases of sex discrimination, it only concerns cases of belief discrimination.

There is no danger whatsoever that this judgement means, in your words, that 'in the future any woman wanting to take a legal case for sex discrimination cant do it because unless it is based on the woman saying she has this as "a belief"'.

Women bringing a case for sex discrimination will always be doing so on the basis of the facts of the matter , not on the basis of protected beliefs. And the facts of the matter are always going to be the basis on which their case is judged, regardless of this judgement.

Clearly this particular case is going to be one in which the woman is claiming discrimination not (or not only) on the basis of sex, but on the basis of the protected characteristic of belief.

Any element of sex discrimination in the case will clearly be judged on the facts of how she was treated and how her sex had a bearing on that, and not at all on her own feminist belief system.

But if she is claiming that she was discriminated against on the basis of her feminist beliefs then naturally as a first stage the court has to determine whether these beliefs meet the criteria that have been established for determining whether this belief system is one that engages the Equality Act.

@IwantToRetire Another thing, calling something "a belief" doesn't undermine it or imply that its truth is unestablished or fundamentally contested.

'Beliefs' don't just relate to subjective matters, such as values or interpretations. They also relate to the most certain and uncontroversial matters of fact.

If a scientifically minder person was sacked by a creationist employer for refusing to accept that the world wasn't made in six days, s/he could make a claim based on the protected characteristic of belief, and the court would need to determine that a belief in scientific method and certain facts of natural history qualified for protection. That wouldn't downgrade the scientific outlook to 'just a matter of belief'.

That hyopthetical case is pretty much identical to the Forstater case. GC beliefs haven't been downgraded from the status of being factual. It is just that it is the belief in those facts, rather than the facts themselves, that form the grounds on which someone has been discriminated against.

No, it’s not me who is missing the point. It’s you.