@Humanisticus @frasmcm @JeffreyASachs I will add that the workplace speech also included statements such as “trans women are men.” Again, workplaces contain trans people. Even if one doesn’t know who they are. Even if they have not yet transitioned.
But especially if they have changed gender under the law.
But especially if they have changed gender under the law.
@Humanisticus @frasmcm @JeffreyASachs The judgment states it clearly: under the UK Gender Recognition Act when someone changes gender, the gender is changed *for all purposes.* To keep asserting in one’s workplace that even when someone has legally changed gender one will ignore that is creating a hostile atmosphere.
@Humanisticus @frasmcm @JeffreyASachs Keep in mind that Forstater wasn’t saying “trans women are men” as a hypothetical or as reported speech or as a question. She said it as her firm belief.
The whole court case is her attempt to establish being able to say “trans women are men” as protected speech.
The whole court case is her attempt to establish being able to say “trans women are men” as protected speech.
@Humanisticus @frasmcm @JeffreyASachs That’s why the speech outside of work is so important to the case. Not to allow an employer to fire or not renew someone for speech outside of work. But to establish how strongly she holds these views.
@Humanisticus @frasmcm @JeffreyASachs For there are many other speech contexts in a workplace where saying the words “trans women are men” should not lead to the conclusion that those words themselves are enough to create a hostile atmosphere.
@threadreaderapp unroll
