Thread by @SexMattersOrg

KMQC: EHRC not taking a position on the underlying matters of controversy. But pointing out where the ET got the law wrong: had it got the law right, it would have been bound to find C's belief protected.

EHRC takes no issue with the points made by BCQC, so can be short. #MayaAppeal

There is some lack of clarity in what the ET finally concluded C's belief was.

Her belief was that sex is a material reality which should not be conflated with gender identity, and is immutable and sometimes matters.

J took account of the manifestation or anticipated manifestation of her belief. It was wrong to take account of manifestation at the first stage. At that stage the q is whether C has the CP of belief. That's a free-standing inquiry.

C may manifest the belief at work, or not; or may not manifest it at all.

Turning to Gray.

Section 10 is the gateway for protection under the EqA. The question there is whether the belief is protected, not about the manner of its manifestation.

The CA later doubted whether the focus should have been on manifestation. Gray is not overruled, but KMQC invites Choudhury J to revisit it.

BCQC's observations on article 17 are important. It's not for the ET to judge the value of a belief, nor to determine its validity.

The inquiry about the biological foundations of C's belief was entirely inappropriate; should not have been undertaken at all, and especially not without proper expert evidence.

ET confused manifestation and belief.

I don't ask EAT to endorse an inquiry into validity. But extraordinary to do that without expert evidence.

Final point. You heard from BC that the law treats sex as biologically determined and binary, and gender as a social attribute - so making a distinction between binary sex and gender.

Many will find that view controversial. But both that belief and the contrary are protected.

The EqA itself provides exemptions in relation to public functions in relation to gender reassignment.

It provides that even where a person has a GRC and is deemed to be of the reassigned sex, a person may refuse to solemnise a marriage because some religious communities treat sex as immutable.

There are parallel exemptions in the Marriage Act, along the same lines as the exemptions for same sex marriages.