Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Not specific to the forstater case but feels relevant. Also quite surprised to see this in the HSJ 'Working with Stonewall is no longer compatible with NHS values'
Maya Forstater Appeal case
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
Not at all relevant to this thread, imo.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
An employee can still be fairly dismissed "just for holding a gender critical belief" if, for example, it is determined that adhering to that belief undermines someone's ability to do their job, or to respect other people, whether customers/users/patients/students, or colleagues.
The important fact is that gender critical belief is now accepted as a protected characteristic and has to be treated as such.
In what way was May Forstater seeing this as a "test case"? Perhaps you know something about her that I don't.
I agree that it is "a boost for the gender critical side", if only because it allows them to harp on about it, and that is what has really pissed me off about this case, and about it being published during Pride Month.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
fair dos
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Athos
Well-Known Member
What actually practising lawyer makes the claim you have i.e. that the EAT judgement opens the door to the possibility of the protections of the Equality Act 2010 being limited to those trans people with/seeking GRCs?
Because it's clearly nonsense. No court would interpret s.7 that way, because the wording is clear on the face of it (it refers to a process, not the GRC process), and, because that's obviously not what parliament intended (else it'd have taken the opportunity to make that explicit in the legislation). And that a GRC is not required to benefit from the protected characteristic of gender reassignment has long been settled law.
FYI re your lame smear, you can't point to a single example of dishonesty.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Then they've not been dismissed just for holding that belief; they've been dismissed for not being able to do their job - a crucial distinction.
Forstater has been open about this being a case to establish the principle that gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic; that was the basis of much of her crowdfunding
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I can point you to an example of dishonestly representing statements and of you cutting off quotes halfway through so you can pretend to ‘add’ insights to later (that were in the other half of the quote).
not to mention that, as you’re the worlds best lawyer, I don’t need to point out a single example to say you have a ‘reputation’. Because you do.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No you can't point to any such example of dishonesty. In any event, I'd consider such a reputation in your eyes as a badge of honour. So let's focus on the substantive issue, which you duck entirely in your post. Which actually practising lawyers support your claim?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You just did it, fuckwit. When you claimed I said the judgement would lead to the equality act ‘being limited to those trans people with GRCs’. That isn’t true, hence it is dishonest.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's effectively you were suggesting with this:
"It leaves it very open to restricting the legislation to people explicitly seeking a grc. That is narrower than previous judgements."
The Equality and Human Rights intervened in this case and are explaining why in this statement, which tries to explain why they think it’s important.
Legal action search | EHRC
The legal action search covers the cases and legal work we have been involved in across England, Scotland and Wales.legal.equalityhumanrights.com
I think the most frustrating part of possibly both judgements is that this description really does not adequately describe what many GC people including Maya believe. Almost all of those actively involved in the GC movement for example do not believe trans people should ever be permitted to use spaces inline with their gender identity up to the point of criminal sanctions and fines for organisations which permit this. It's also a fairly commonly held belief that trans people should not have the right to legally change their gender. Many including Maya believe things such as preferred pronouns are 'Rohypnol' and part of a plot to lower women's coignitive defences and make them vulnerable to abuse. Or that trans healthcare for young people is some kind of paedophile plot, or a trans-humanist plot by rich trans Jews, or a money making big pharma plot or that 'gender ideology' was created by Queer theorists as a front for breaking down barriers such as the age of consent. The idea that the existence of trans people represents some devious secret motive whether that's to erase women and lesbians, a means for predatory men to gain access to women's spaces, some other bizarre plot usually inteneded to facilitate child abuse and sexual violence is actually pretty fundamental to a large area of GC opinion. And the problem with this judgement is that those who hold these beliefs are now inisting they have the right to express them anywhere and any attempt to prevent them is illegal. And given a key GC tactic is to go into spaces where they know they aren't wanted, whether Pride marches, the Anarchist Bookfair or trans conferences, this is likely to result in a string of threats of vexatious legal challenges. Already on mumsnet and twitter GC activists are claiming this should mean no-one is ever challenged at work for GC views, that venues are now legally compelled to host GC events and that all the twitter bannings etc are now illegal. And if this ruling is perceived as widening the threshold for protected belief then why stop at GC views, what about conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, people worried about the Islamification of Britain, could all they demand a meeting space at a local library or community centre and claim discrimination if rejected?
The answer is almost certainly not under the law as it stands but that doesn't mean a lot of damage can't be caused by those who believe they can because equality law is complex and nuanced at the best of times and most organisations will seek to avoid litigation at all costs.
It may not be the court's fault that this has happened, they can really only judge Maya's beliefs on what she said they were and the various tweets she sent whilst employed, but I think it would have been helpful for some of those beliefs to be fully interrogated. She very much doesn't support the human rights of trans people as agreed by the European Court of Human Right's for example, no matter what she claims. It's a bit like brushing off extremist Christian views on the basis that the essence of Christian thought is that Jesus is the son of God and our saviour. There can be a lot more to Chstianity than that. Instead they seem to have completely ignored many of the widely held conclusions of GC thought and portrayed the entire spectrum of views as legitimate on the basis of reducing them to a single principle and the fact they found a trans woman who doesn't mind being called a man and that an academic, working outside of her dicipline, supports many GC views. Similar defences could apply to holocaust denial, 911 conspiracies, climate change denial, Covid denial and all kinds of things and I expect many of those fringes will have greeted this judgement with some glee.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No, I was saying what I actually said. Note the word ‘seeking’ and indeed the context where the judge has said it’s okay to misgender sometimes.
Athos
Well-Known Member
What you actually said was complete bollocks though; there's no chance of s.7 being limited to those with or seeking a GRC. But do let us have links to the actually practising lawyers who apparently support your position.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Yes, you do know something I didn't know about Forstater - that she has been crowdfunding and that she was, supposedly, seeking to "establish the principle that gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic".
I am not going to carry on splitting hairs with you about terminology because this is getting tedious/pointless.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. But a complete reversal of the legal position on the question of whether or not gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic (such that you can't be discriminated against just for holding - rather than expressing it acting on - them) is hardly splitting hairs about terminology!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's surely not surprising that the GC position should pass the threshold as a suitable 'philosophical belief' for protection. I don't see how it could be otherwise with the law as it stands, and I think it would be way more concerning for a free society, for all of us whatever our beliefs or positions, if the judgement had not gone this way.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
maybe, but what I said isn’t what you said it was. And if you think the opinion of the most senior justice to pass judgement on such a case is irrelevant, well fine, you think that.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No 'maybe' about it; it was complete bollocks. As was your intimation that your 'idiosyncratic' interpretation is supported by "actually practising lawyers."
Of course I don't think the Judge's comments are irrelevant; I think your misinterpretions of them are.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I copied them from the judgement. Hey ho.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, what you copied from the judgement was a section about not all trans people having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. You then went on (in a subsequent post) to add your own complete nonsense interpretation of what that meant - how it might narrow the protections of the Equality Act 2010 by making them somehow contingent on a GRC. (Albeit you've latterly conceded it may be complete bollocks.)
Last edited:
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Can you not be quiet? This is just a spat between two posters and mostly not at all helpful or interesting.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Can you just stop doing so?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sorry, cross posted!Can you just stop doing so?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't know. Probably for clarity? But what does that have to do with your misinterpretation of their legal effect?
Athos
Well-Known Member
We're discussing the ramifications of the recent judgement. If that's not interesting to you, try a thread that's not explicitly about that very thing!
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Trans thread started by coop in which Athos gives a practical demonstration of why hes the most tedious and pointless poster in the history of urban? I have to say I'm shocked.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Heartbroken.
Similar threads
