Maya shared the pronouns are Rohypnol piece and is a signatory on the Women's Declaration of Sex Based Rights who recently submitted evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee that called for the elimination of all trans rights and in a very round about way the elimination of the 'practice of transgenderism'.
This phrasing is no accident. The submission was almost certainly written by Shiela Jeffreys who dedicated her recent book to Janice Raymond's Transsexual Emplire which also called for the elimination of transsexuality from society. That gets much closer to the threshold of totalitarian speech. I imagine if someone called for the elimination of Islam or homosexuality from society then that would probably not be protected. And these views are not fringe they are mainstream in gender critical circles as I have explained many times and which is why I'll reply to your post on the legal aspect of this case but then I don't really want to engage further.
I am not lumping all gender critical views together, I am pointing out that there is a range of views which go far beyond believing humans can't change sex and it might have been useful had the courts recognised that and this might have had some impact on how this case has been reported. I I think it would have been useful to interrogate exactly what Maya's beliefs are, or at least to acknowledge there is a range of gender critical opinion and it is rarely just a belief that trans women are men, and that possibly not all of those would be protected.
Having said that I'm not arguing with the conclusion of the judgement. I didn't expect the tribunal to fail on those grounds and I don't really care that GC beliefs as they were presented by the court - that humans cant change sex - are protected given the types of other beliefs that are. And the Judge clearly attempted to mitigate the possible consequences of this finding, but I think that could have been done better by fully interrogating what gender critical beliefs often encompass - and had that process taken place then a different judgement might have been reached. That might not have been the right judgement, and the Judge might have even ruled the same thing, but I don't think the court gave fair hearing either to what Maya's beliefs actually are - both judgements seemed to agree she supports the human rights of trans people when she clearly doesn't at least not in the sense human rights are usually understood - and neither really looked into the wider beliefs of the gender critical movement and simply defined it in the most simple and benign terms. I think that's a problem because this sleight of hand has been used over and over again by GC people who claim they were banned from social media, criticised, got in trouble at work etc simply for saying human's can't change sex when in reality they quite often said a lot more than that. And it's now been given added impetus by the courts which has led to GC people triumphantly declaring they can say whatever they want to and about trans people in any space they choose and it is illegal to stop them. I don't think that's a great thing, I think it's largely happened because of the way the case has been reported and even a judgment reaching the same conclusion could have done more to attempt to mitigate against that.