Yes! We won. All the important bits. I was discriminated against by @CGDev because of my beliefs.
A potential job offer and visiting fellowship were withdrawn. My biography was taken down from the website when I tried to assert my rights under the Equality Act (victimisation).
Employers take note: if people who think gender critical beliefs are not worthy of respect tell you to discriminate against us and you do, you could be liable.
Review your policies and make sure they don't discriminate against people with gender critical beliefs
The judgment is 81 pages. It is highly fact based. I did not harass anyone and there was never a claim that I did.
This is not a license to harass people. Rather it is a recognition that in a democratic country people with different beliefs can express them and get along.
Right now there is an international ministerial conference about freedom of religion and belief going on in Westminster.
This is something the UK can lead on. Protect the rule of law and democracy. Don't give in to authoritarians with colourful flags demanding obedience.
In Oscar style. I’ve got thank-yous....
Firstly to my family. My husband and my sons, my mum and dad and sisters who never asked for this, and have stood by me all the way.
My superstar lawyers ⭐️⭐️⭐️ and in particular @anyabike. none of this would have happened without her. Together with @PeterDaly and Ben Cooper QC I have had the best team! We have changed the debate in the UK and made it safe(r) for people to speak.
All the people who have kept me sane - my locals in Herts (especially Rowena), the Worshipful Company of Difficult Women (Hands Across the Tweed! 😉), the amazing @SexMattersOrg team.
Ooo. The first opinion from GC-antagonistic legal twitter is out.
Simon Cox says "UK employers have a right to fire workers for refusing to use correct pronouns of trans folks"
Compares Mackereth to me. Suggests I won because I didn't cross that line.
Thing is Mackereth case doesn't make such broad findings. It found that the DWP's specific policy (which related to vulnerable claimants with MH issues) wasn't unlawful.
It wasn't a general finding about "correct pronouns" and "trans folks"
These things are fact specific.
Say a woman wanted to talk about her trans-identifying ex-husband or her trans identifying child would her employer get to compel her language?
What about making a complaint about a trans-identifying male co-worker who sexually harassed her?
Was surprised to hear @k21fem say that the GRC process involves appearing before a panel. It never has. It's always been done on the papers with helpful administration and directions
It's a sign of how little debate there has been that there is so much misunderstanding.
One point that wasn't spelled out or explored was that most of the people who don't have a GRC also don't have surgery, which puts @LukeTryl 's finding into context
"Her tweet mentioned the names of Karon Monaghan a lawyer at Matrix Chambers. Monaghan features in our submission to GANHRI in relation to the failure of the EHRC .... Maya's tweet mentions Akua Reindorf also a Board Member of the EHRC"