Are gender critical beliefs views a protected belief?
Robin Moira White, lawyer, trans rights expert and commentator on my case wrote in 2021 that people with GC beliefs are not protected against discrimination if they voice them at work.
So following the EAT judgment White & Newbiggin rewrote the chapter in their book to recognise that a belief can only be excluded from protection if it akin to Naziism or totalitarianism in destroying others' rights.
Their re-drafted chapter appears to be the source of the often cited view that it is only holding the belief, not manifesting it, that is protected.
Of course that was also wrong.
This is not what Mr Justice Choudhury said at para 78 - at all. What he said is that manifestation may justifiably be restricted in some circumstances.
In 2023 Robin says again that my beliefs are not protected against discrimination.
This time Robin says my beliefs have changed, and are no longer worthy of respect, even if they were before.
Here are my "absolutist" beliefs as I expressed them in my witness statement in 2019.
The EAT and the tribunal also had a good look at the statement in the FairPlay for Women booklet and found nothing there that was not "worthy of respect in a democratic society"
This is quite the exercise in missing the point by Prof Shreya Atrey in Modern Law Review.
FWS will have a severe impact on "transgender, gender fluid, gender non-conforming, polygender, genderqueer and intersex" it says (without defining any of these terms).
Remember, FWS was just about whether a GRC changes a person's sex for the purpose of the Equality Act.
Atrey says the protected characteristic of sex should be amended to include sex characteristics, gender, gender identity, gender expression and gender performance. 🤨
A curious thing about the draft government guidance: It has no conceptual underpinning at all
“In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of children who are questioning the way they feel about being a boy or a girl, including the physical attributes of their sex and the related ways in which they fit into society. “
Er ok…🤷♀️
It then dives into “where a child or their parent has raised a request relating to social transition”
The phrase appears 29 times in the guidance, but is never explained what it means or what it might involve.
The schools are told they must "consider what is in the best interests of the child and other children, and a decision relating to social transition may not be the same as a child’s wishes. "
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"