Thread by @mlothianmclean

The Maya Forstater appeal was solely about whether the first tribunal erred in concluding her transphobic beliefs were philosophical or not. The judgement decided it did. It specifically outlines this doesn't mean Forstater is free to harass, discriminate & misgender trans people

"That does not mean, however, that those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately & gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could [...] amount to harassment of, or discrimination against, a trans person."

What happens next is Forstater gets a new tribunal

Some key bits from the the appeal judgement.

"This judgment does not mean that those with GC beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination & harassment under the EqA"

"Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case."

The downside is the judgement believes Forstater's belief can be protected as 'philosophical' because it doesn't seek to destroy the rights of trans persons in a manner comparable to something like Nazism (which is one of the only beliefs that apparently warrants Article 17).

This is a demonstration of how transphobia – which I think seeks to legislate trans people out of public life, thus destroying their human rights – gets its pass via wearing the face of being 'gender critical', so its followers can convince themselves they're not the bad guys

Basically, Forstater believes sex is immutable but because she SAYS she would be polite to some trans people and not infringe on their basic human rights, the belief is protected. Jane Russell, who was arguing against Forstater, said her beliefs had been 'sanitised'. I agree!