Thread by @AdamWagner1

The Employment Tribunal has rejected the claim by Maya Forstater finding that a belief that sex is biologically immutable is not a protected belief within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It's an interesting and (if not overturned) important judgment drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf8…

Lots in there and the judge didn't shy away from reaching conclusions on some important issues:
- the criteria to be applied to a 'lack of belief',
- whether an "absolutist" view of trans people is compatible with dignity and fundamental rights of others (court said no)

- the "absolutist" view of the immutability of sex can lead to harassment and is therefore "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" (this is a technical phrase which excludes a belief from human rights protection even if it is cogent and serious)

- The claimant was successful in one aspect which is persuading the court that a belief that sex is immutable is cogent and serous, which is the threshold to reach for a belief to be protected
- Though this passage is expressed strangely, double negative

- This is the bit before that para which refers to the scientific evidence. The judge doesn't sound impressed by the cohesion of the belief

- One aspect which will be interesting on appeal is the tension between the series of cases where religious believers were (lawfully) told by employers to provide equal services to lesbian and gay people (Macfarlane, Ladelle etc) and the 'gay cake' compelled speech case

- Court held that this wasn't unlawful compelled speech as it was reasonable to *require* the claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman in order to avoid harassment of that person.
- This is the Jordan Peterson argument and I think it will end up back in the Supreme Court

- I can't see how that tension will be easily resolved by the Supreme Court and the 'compelled speech' case law is in its very early days (in the UK). May have to go to Strasbourg