Thread by @MForstater

Employment law podcast covers my case.

A fair (and quite dry) explanation of the case and the Grainger criteria

HT @MilsomChr

https://twitter.com/NicholasRober11/status/1226792305652371456

Although it gets my "lack of belief" wrong. It is not a lack of belief that "people can self identify" (people can do what they want...).

It is a lack of belief that everyone (incl me) has an inner gender identity, separate from and more important than our sex.

But his point on whether "lack of belief" shld be judged by full Grainger criteria is good

eg. being a vegan is a life-defining belief w cogency, seriousness etc... but liking bacon sandwiches can be just 'meh'.... still shldnt be discriminated for not believing 'meat is murder'

@NicholasRober11 notes (as have many others) the j'ment conflates the belief and manifestation, and dismisses ordinary courtesy and respect.

He says that employers should approach this conflict of rights issue with a large dollop of commonsense and compassion.

Employers shld avoid having to back one belief or other... says such irreconcilable circumstances are v. rare.

I think misses the point that irreconcilable circumstances in fact arise practically in situations *wherever* sex matters. (as covered by EqA fairplayforwomen.com/single-sex/)

So practically for employers whose workplaces involve communal accommodation, showers & the inevitable toilets. But also employers w sex based genuine occupational requirements, providing single sex services or with safeguarding responsibilities. And for equal pay & monitoring

Compassion & commonsense says u can deal w situations by having 'gender neutral' options wherever possible to protect everyone's privacy.

But the belief i don't share says that is transphobic: we must accept ppl w fully intact male bodies in intimate ♀️ spaces.