Agree with this tweet. It wasn't the right defence to run, and was clearly aimed as a preliminary step in establishing some kind of freedom of speech argument. Unfair dismissal would have been a stronger line
I'm not so interested in her losing as the content of the judgment. It is "not acceptable in a democratic society" to call a person who looks like a man and identifies as a concept that does not exist in law "he". A person who called the claimant a aunt.
. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
“However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned. I do not accept the Claimant's contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned.”
This is some first class bullshit right here. GRCs ARE a legal fiction. The law cannot literally make your biology change sex classes no matter how much you want it.
I would ask the TERFS again (for answer came there none) - do you have hair below your ears? Do you ever wear shoes with a heel? Do you ever wear makeup?
If so why do you continue to perpetrate damaging gender stereotypes? Think of the gyrls and wamyn you are damaging.
The Judge held that she was entitled to a belief that that sex is immutable despite the scientific evidence being against that. He also held that the law entitles holders of a Gender Recognition Certificate legal rights, including to be described as the gender set out in that certificate. I can't see there is anything objectionable in either of those decisions.
It is worth noting the lack of scientific justification proffered by the Claimant in support of her beliefs.
The Claimant's own statement said:
“There are still areas of scientific discovery about the pathways of
sexual development, including chromosomal and other “disorders of
sexual development” (so called “intersex” conditions), and about the
psychological factors underlying transgender identification and gender
dysphoria. However I do not believe that any such research will
disprove the basic reality that there are two sexes…"
Other passages from the judgment (emphasis added):
The Claimant focussed on inheritance of genetic material rather than
chromosomes stating that “Sex is determined at conception, through the
inheritance (or not) of a working copy of a piece of genetic code which comes
from the father (generally, apart from in very rare cases, carried on the Y
chromosome)”. She accepted that women do not necessarily have XX
chromosome and men may not have XY chromosomes.
....
In the bundle I was provided with the Expert Declaration of Deanna Adkins,
M.D. from litigation in north Carolina that the Claimant accepted set out the
possible chromosomal variations and differences in hormone production and
reception (although she notes that these are rare and does not accept the
concept of gender identity):
“a. Individuals with Complete Androgen Insensitivity have 46-XY
chromosomes, which are typically associated with males, but do not have
the tissue receptors that respond to testosterone or other androgens. The
body, therefore, does not develop external genitalia or secondary sex
characteristics typically associated with males but does, generally, have
testes. At birth, based on the appearance of the external genitalia,
individuals with Complete Androgen Insensitivity are generally assigned
female.
b. Individuals with Klinefelter Syndrome have 47-XXY chromosomes and
internal and external genitalia typically associated with males, however,
the testicles in individuals diagnosed with Klinefelter Syndrome lose
function over time. This may lead to breast development and infertility in
addition to a number of other health issues.
c. Individuals with Turner Syndrome have 45-XO chromosomes, which
means they have one less chromosome than everyone else. In utero,
these individuals form sex characteristics typically associated with
females including all internal structures but the ovaries begin to die soon
after birth and the individuals are unable to make oestrogen. Without
treatment, individuals with Turner Syndrome do not develop secondary
sex characteristics typically associated with women.
d. Individuals with Mosaic Turner Syndrome may have two different sets
of chromosomes. They lose a sex chromosome in the early stages of
embryonic development. The cells that are descendants of the cell that
lost a chromosome will have Turner Syndrome features. The cells that
are descendants of the cells that did not lose a sex chromosome will have
features of the embryo’s initial chromosomal sex. Sometimes this initial
sex was XX and sometimes it is XY. When there are cells with XY
chromosomes present, the fetus produces testosterone and there is at
least some testicular tissue. There may also be ovarian tissue. The
external genitalia can then be a mixture of external genitalia typically
associated with both males and females.
e. Individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) are individuals
who have XX chromosomes and external genitalia typically associated
with women but are born with extra androgens, including testosterone,
and from early in gestation, their brains are exposed to high levels of
androgen. Despite frequently being assigned female at birth because of
external genitalia, many individuals with this condition have a male
gender identity.
f. Individuals with 5-alpha reductase are chromosomally XY but they have
an enzyme deficiency that does not allow them to convert testosterone to
dihydrotestosterone, the active form of testosterone. At birth, based on
external genitalia, they are often assigned female, but their gender
identity is almost always male as adults. Their external genitalia also
changes at puberty because hormonal changes allow them to make more
dihydrotestosterone which is needed for the physical changes that occur
causing the development of external genitalia typically associated with
males. During early development there is enough testosterone to affect
the brain, which often results in a male gender identity.”
....
44. Chromosomes are the structures in which genetic code is held. The DNA
molecules in chromosomes are the genetic code and their structure provides
the genes that effect sex. However, it is increasingly understood that there are
not simply genes for particular characteristics. Much depends on how genes
are controlled. I was provided in the bundle with an article from the New York
times by Dr. Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies, who
noted that:
“There has been a lot of new scientific research on this topic since the
1950s. But those looking to biology for an easy-to-administer definition of
sex and gender can derive little comfort from the most important of these
findings. For example, we now know that rather than developing under
the direction of a single gene, the foetal embryonic testes or ovaries
develop under the direction of opposing gene networks, one of which
represses male development while stimulating female differentiation and
the other of which does the opposite. What matters, then, is not the
presence or absence of a particular gene but the balance of power
among gene networks acting together or in a particular sequence.
This undermines the possibility of using a simple genetic test to determine
“true” sex.”
Finally, it is worth noting the following comments made by the Judge:
79. Many of concerns that the Claimant has, such as ensuring protection of
vulnerable women, do not, in fact, rest on holding a belief that biological sex is
immutable. It is quite possible to accept that transwomen are women but still
argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to
exclude certain trans women from spaces that are generally only open to
women assigned female at birth because of trauma suffered by users of the
space who have been subject to sexual assault. This may be lawful under EqA
where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
80. There might be circumstances in which a trans woman is recognised as an
woman, but is not permitted to compete in sport on an entirely equal basis with
women assigned female at birth, if that would create an unfair advantage.
81. Many of the illustrations the Claimant relies on do not, in fact, rely on the belief
that men can never become women; but on the analysis that there may be
limited circumstances in which it is relevant that a person is a trans woman or
trans man, such as when ensuring appropriate medical care is provided, which
takes proper account of trans status.
All in all, the Judgment confirms to me at least that in this area our understanding is still developing; and dogmatism is generally best avoided. There are very real concerns about how women should be protected from a small minority of trans or pseudo trans people, but those very real concerns should not lead one to a strident assertion that sex is immutable.
Linda, I'm not sure that it is right to say either that chromosomes do not change or (if this is what you are saying) that they are the sole driver of biological sex.
The concept of chromosomes (or DNA) being "disordered" is also a bit problematic.
actually, it has been shown that some transplant patients’ chromosomes have been changed BUT as to this, the “liberals” have truly shut down freedom of speech.
I'm sorry, I also meant to add: I am absolutely not an expert in any of this, so I can't pretend I understand all the issues. But what I have read, it seems to be pretty clear that sex/gender is not always binary and straightforward.
note, Thuggy, that the section quoted from her report was apparently common ground
However, on the wider point, there appear to be some very worrying practices in relation to children in which they are treated at young ages in ways which appear to many of us to be completely inappropriate. But, again, the fact that there are those concerns should not lead us to assert that sex is immutable when the science seems to suggest it is not.
The fact that there are aberrations does not mean that as a generality sex is binary. It is. That’s why the things she describes are syndromes and so on.
Thuggy, on what basis do you say sex is entirely binary? I mean, obviously generally it is, but on what basis can you say (if this is what you are saying) that it is always binary?
I ask out of genuine interest, not simply rhetorically. As I say, this is an area in which I don't pretend to have any particular insight or expertise.
Because there are only two sexes. There is no third sex, there is no spectrum of matter that exists between sperm and ova. You have one or the other (or none, but still belong to one sex class or the other)
I can't believe that we have to say this as if it was new information.
Your first point is begging the question (in its true sense). You define sex by reference to two sexes and then say there are only two sexes. That doesn't address the possibility that some people may be a bit of both.
How does your second point tie in with the science referred to by the judge? It appears that some people have both male and female genitalia, or neither, or a confused mix.
AP: as the judge says, religion is in a special category. For obvious historic reasons the law doesn't require religious belief to be based upon rationality.
No one has male and female genitalia, and people with actual intersex conditions who are nonetheless either male or female find this appropriation of their condition to suggest that humans are not sexually dimorphic incredibly offensive
You know how babies are made, right? That's it. That's human sexual dimorphism.
if you don't believe me, next time you want to have a baby I suggest you get your wife to impregnate you. I'll wait
People who are extremely certain that there are only two sexes and you cannot transition between them, despite medical science (only starting to, admittedly) saying that’s not necessarily the case remind me of the people who were really sure Pluto was definitely a planet because that’s what they learned in school. They’re just terms we use to describe the way we view the world.
I don't know personally whether you are right or wrong about this, but what you say does not seem to be consistent with the science quoted by the judge
people with actual intersex conditions who are nonetheless either male or female find this appropriation of their condition to suggest that humans are not sexually dimorphic incredibly offensive
Noted. I'm not intending to be offensive to anyone.
On your final point: this just seems to be a reiteration that most people are either male or female and under no confusion or doubt about that. I understand that, thanks.
I understand that Heffalump. However the EA doesn’t include the circular get-out Taylor has applied - this has been created by the Courts.
The problem with saying a belief shouldn’t be protected because it is offensive to others is that it is entirely subjective. A strong belief in green issues was held to be protected - was any assessment carried out as to whether that was offensive to gammons? I think not. The circularity means this exception will only be applied to those whose offence is well publicised and favoured.
And my point is that if genuinely held beliefs can lose protection because they are offensive to others, there’s no reason (except dogma) that religions should too.
I understand the black-letter legislative distinction
Heff, there are only two sexes. You either have XY chromosomes and produce small gametes or XX chromosomes and produce large gametes. You put the two together to reproduce. There are conditions of sexual development that mean that a small number of people do not have obvious genitalia of one type or the other but that doesn't change the fact that there are two sexes. A small number of people are born with six fingers or toes, but that doesn't mean that the usual number for humans isn't five. There are always going to be genetic quirks, because evolution, but they do not change what is normal for humans.
I hope Maya appeals. Sadly, I don't think hers was the best test case as she was a contractor rather than an employee, but I am grateful that someone was willing to stick her head above the parapet.
Heff helpfully setting out a number of potential exceptions that assist in proving the rule.
AND
no one is “assigned female at birth” - if female they are female.
god this is all so terrifyingly fvcked up and is the sort of doublethink that is truly a threat to all of our liberty and sanity (without exaggeration).
It is also the case that those who pompously describe themselves as “progressives”, and who embrace or flirt with this sort of doublethink, seem to have NO IDEA that this is a quiet but vital part of why THE VAST MAJORITY OF people will not vote for you! It’s mad.
I didn’t mean “no one” literally bone head! this isn’t a legal opinion. of course, like the six fingered, there are exceptions that prove the rule. god help us....
I posted that report in its entirety so people can read the “expert” evidence and decide for themselves whether this is a representation of the actual science or a self interested woke grifter milking this shiz as hard as they can at the expense of children.
It's interesting that the law and judges (including in the Employment Tribunal) are moving more and more towards the identity politics agenda and wide view of protected characteristics. When at the same time politically the election tends to suggest politics and the electorate are very much against this (I think the N.London focus on identity politics not jobs and the economy is one of the main reasons Labour lost).
Be interesting to see if this split continues or whether post Brexit a Tory govt with a big majority tries to rein in the move to subjectively based identity rights and pare down protected characteristics/discrimination laws esp in areas like trans rights were the view of Tayler J here that such views are "not acceptable" is I am pretty sure absolutely anathema to the vast majority of the population/voters.
Clergs, have you seen JK Rowling has entered the fray? She made her fortune writing about magical thoughts and people that can transform from one thing to another but Maya's judgment has been a step too far for her. Yes! Twitter frothers are there with threats of book burning (always an action of those on the side of truth and right, I note).
Dude, I'm sure she'll give you make up tips if you ask nicely
I don't think you really understand what being a feminist is, it certainly doesn't mean never wearing lipstick. You could just google this stuff you know. Do your own homework
I wish hateful wamyn would stop pretending that they represent feminism. You don't. What you think is hate speech. In the USA you wouldn't be allowed to go on feminist marches.
I mean why even bother putting any remotely complex legal issues before ET judges? They are generally very average practitioners who have often worked as something like a commercial solicitor or a barrister who did 40% family / 30% PI / 20% chancery / 10% employment. Actual law is beyond them.
As an example, one region has appointment two new EJs. One being the top employment barrister in the region and a highly capable practitioner, who unsurprisingly puts the guys who have been EJs for 15 years to shame with his knowledge and approach to cases. Another who was a PSL and whose sole experience of employment law is writing articles.
Will be interesting to see what EAT thinks of this? There have been a few silly philosophical belief cases recently around things like vegetarianism and the philosophical belief in the right to own your own copyright.
Tayler judgement correctly following the ludicrous law promulgated by the zeolots Harman and Toynbee
All this demonstrates that Johnstone's first act should be to repeal the ridiculous Equalities Act 2010
'PollyToynbee wrote that the bill, which was drafted under the guidance of HarrietHarman, was "Labour's biggest idea for 11 years.
A public-sector duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has... This new duty to narrow the gap would permeate every aspect of government policy. Its possible ramifications are mind-bogglingly immense."
One cabinet member described it as "socialism in one clause".
Do we need the Equality Act to specifically protect people who have what I imagine are actually very common views on the binary nature of sex?
Not for me. The fact that some less worthy characteristics may be covered isn’t a good argument for this being covered. Philosophical belief is only included in the legislation because they were scared about trying to define religion.
Sacking somebody for being fat, for having blonde hair, for being ugly or for being poor is abhorrent but not protected by the Equality Act, and not should it be.
This is the Forstater case I assume? Judge is right as to the awfulness of her views - no place for that kind of prejudice - but I cannot see why it justifies terminating her employment.
the fact that it was a non-renewal of a contract makes fook all difference morally, and I’m not even remotely interested whether it makes a difference legally.
They could have not renewed her contract for having an ugly mole on her face, for having a bad lisp or for being fat and ugly.
She wouldn’t have had any recourse in those circumstances. Does a woman who unnecessarily decided to take to social media to provoke a public debate about these issues deserve more protection than them?
And I love people saying “you can sack someone for being fat but not being black (or another protected characteristic) and that’s TERRIBLE. When they don’t think it would be at all good to introduce legislation to protect such a wide and random other group of characteristics.
Which is strange given you’ve referred to a non-renewal of a contract which is entirely irrelevant as she was seeking to rely on the applicant provisions of the EA. Nice try Laz
Who cares? the issue is: she was denied further paying work, whether having the legal status of an employee or otherwise, because of her views. Which is highly objectionable. The legal ins and outs really do not matter to that moral position. I’m not arguing with you about what the law is, or what her legal status was, or indeed at all. I’m telling you that the denial of work to her was morally illegitimate because it was derived solely from her airing of personal views unrelated to her work. Even though I agree with the judge that those views were repulsive.
Come on then mate let’s have some more “but er no I think you’ll find this was being handled under a34(7) rather than s58(2)(B) and that makes ALL the difference”. Do you not get it? I know you know more about this area of law than me, there’s no need to show me you’ve measure your cock and it’s exactly rly 5.7in. This is not about the law.
Eek sounds painful. I just fixed my “oops i forgot my sister” issue with a cheapo but posh looking F&M hamper. Last day to order in time for Christmas. £85 + delivery and all organic, bonza.
Been on the phone since 9am Dhaka time about currency shit. Not slept yet, think I’ll skip it.
Friend and daughter coming down to kernow on Saturday, shopping with friend while her daughter decorates on Sunday, couple of other friends over on Monday, then chillaxing for Christmas Day, football on Boxing Day, after that I’m not sure. Depends how long yas wants to stay down for.
She’s networking madly because she wants to attend London fashion week in feb but it’s like, less than two months away heh. Anyway I imagine she’ll go back to London which will give me some breathing space.
Cool thing about where I live is there’s a few towns etc along the coast and I have a total view of it all so if I fancy seeing the fireworks on New Years I just walk to the wall and look around and there’s fireworks going off in every direction.
0
0
This is a trans thread isn’t it.
0
0
Oh dear ideologues hoisted by their own petards
what a shame
0
0
Agree with this tweet. It wasn't the right defence to run, and was clearly aimed as a preliminary step in establishing some kind of freedom of speech argument. Unfair dismissal would have been a stronger line
https://twitter.com/aileenmcharg/status/1207579174300467202
0
1
I'm not so interested in her losing as the content of the judgment. It is "not acceptable in a democratic society" to call a person who looks like a man and identifies as a concept that does not exist in law "he". A person who called the claimant a aunt.
0
1
Oh yes some of the comments in the judgment are absurd.
0
1
Hoolie I don't think she was an employee, so couldn't have brought an unfair dismissal claim.
0
0
Ah well that explains that
0
0
I hope this judgment is appealed. Completely ridiculous.
0
0
If you read the judgment, she was a consultant, not an employee.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view
0
0
It's breathtaking really that believing in an imaginary man in the sky with a beard is protected and believing there are men and women isn't.
What a fooked up world.
0
0
. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Bravo. Perfectly said.
0
0
This is some first class bullshit right here. GRCs ARE a legal fiction. The law cannot literally make your biology change sex classes no matter how much you want it.
0
1
Alan Partridge19 Dec 19 09:11
Reply|
Report
| DM
It's breathtaking really that believing in an imaginary man in the sky with a beard is protected and believing there are men and women isn't.
What a fooked up world.
+1 for this but here we are
0
1
Gregor Murray is appalling it is a really appalling outcome
0
0
Lot of transphobia on this thread.
0
0
No there isn't. Stop attention seeking
0
0
I would ask the TERFS again (for answer came there none) - do you have hair below your ears? Do you ever wear shoes with a heel? Do you ever wear makeup?
If so why do you continue to perpetrate damaging gender stereotypes? Think of the gyrls and wamyn you are damaging.
0
0
I think I meant perpetuate but I got the gist
0
1
Have I got this straight- The belief that a trans woman is a woman would be protected but not the claimants inverse belief?
0
1
one of the hottest French politicians of the 2000s wore heels
and was a man
so what's your but?
0
1
I have revealed too much
0
0
Reply|
Report
| DM
Have I got this straight- The belief that a trans woman is a woman would be protected but not the claimants inverse belief?
yes
0
1
It's ok clergs, sarkosy is a pocket rocket, I agree
0
0
He he leetle Hollande? Hot? Or Sarkozy? They are all leetle to be fair
0
0
Kudos to the judge though. His ability to believe 2 entirely contradictory things before breakfast is amazing.
0
0
Lol
0
0
(Was to Linda btw)
0
0
The Judge held that she was entitled to a belief that that sex is immutable despite the scientific evidence being against that. He also held that the law entitles holders of a Gender Recognition Certificate legal rights, including to be described as the gender set out in that certificate. I can't see there is anything objectionable in either of those decisions.
It is worth noting the lack of scientific justification proffered by the Claimant in support of her beliefs.
The Claimant's own statement said:
Other passages from the judgment (emphasis added):
Finally, it is worth noting the following comments made by the Judge:
All in all, the Judgment confirms to me at least that in this area our understanding is still developing; and dogmatism is generally best avoided. There are very real concerns about how women should be protected from a small minority of trans or pseudo trans people, but those very real concerns should not lead one to a strident assertion that sex is immutable.
0
0
Heffalump the existence of chromosomal disorders does not mean biological sex is not immutable. Immutable means
immutable
/ɪˈmjuːtəb(ə)l/
adjective
unchanging over time or unable to be changed
i cannot change whatever the chromosomal construction of my body is, and neither can you. No one can.
0
0
Linda, I'm not sure that it is right to say either that chromosomes do not change or (if this is what you are saying) that they are the sole driver of biological sex.
The concept of chromosomes (or DNA) being "disordered" is also a bit problematic.
0
0
actually, it has been shown that some transplant patients’ chromosomes have been changed BUT as to this, the “liberals” have truly shut down freedom of speech.
0
0
I'm sorry, I also meant to add: I am absolutely not an expert in any of this, so I can't pretend I understand all the issues. But what I have read, it seems to be pretty clear that sex/gender is not always binary and straightforward.
0
0
Funnily enough Deanna Adkins MD makes money by treating trans kids. Who’d have guessed?
0
1
note, Thuggy, that the section quoted from her report was apparently common ground
However, on the wider point, there appear to be some very worrying practices in relation to children in which they are treated at young ages in ways which appear to many of us to be completely inappropriate. But, again, the fact that there are those concerns should not lead us to assert that sex is immutable when the science seems to suggest it is not.
Judy, I don't understand your post.
0
0
Heffalump she wasn’t saying gender (a social construct) was immutable. She was saying sex was. Agree or disagree, fine, but don’t mix the two up.
0
0
The fact that there are aberrations does not mean that as a generality sex is binary. It is. That’s why the things she describes are syndromes and so on.
What is not binary is gender.
0
0
sorry, you are right, AP. Correction accepted.
0
0
So in summary
- she wasn't even an employee
- the judgment was sound, pragmatic and compassionate
- to answer Clerghams original question "judge j tayler is a sound, pragmatic and compassionate kinda guy"
0
0
It *isnt* ffs -2nd line.
0
0
Thuggy, on what basis do you say sex is entirely binary? I mean, obviously generally it is, but on what basis can you say (if this is what you are saying) that it is always binary?
I ask out of genuine interest, not simply rhetorically. As I say, this is an area in which I don't pretend to have any particular insight or expertise.
0
0
Because there are only two sexes. There is no third sex, there is no spectrum of matter that exists between sperm and ova. You have one or the other (or none, but still belong to one sex class or the other)
I can't believe that we have to say this as if it was new information.
0
0
I feel like Johnson kicking the stone to refute Berkley
0
0
The judgment seems to say the belief WOULD have been capable of protection were it not offensive to the rights of others.
Wait until ET Tayler reads the Koran!
0
0
Your first point is begging the question (in its true sense). You define sex by reference to two sexes and then say there are only two sexes. That doesn't address the possibility that some people may be a bit of both.
How does your second point tie in with the science referred to by the judge? It appears that some people have both male and female genitalia, or neither, or a confused mix.
0
0
AP: as the judge says, religion is in a special category. For obvious historic reasons the law doesn't require religious belief to be based upon rationality.
0
0
No one has male and female genitalia, and people with actual intersex conditions who are nonetheless either male or female find this appropriation of their condition to suggest that humans are not sexually dimorphic incredibly offensive
You know how babies are made, right? That's it. That's human sexual dimorphism.
if you don't believe me, next time you want to have a baby I suggest you get your wife to impregnate you. I'll wait
0
0
People who are extremely certain that there are only two sexes and you cannot transition between them, despite medical science (only starting to, admittedly) saying that’s not necessarily the case remind me of the people who were really sure Pluto was definitely a planet because that’s what they learned in school. They’re just terms we use to describe the way we view the world.
0
0
Linda:
I don't know personally whether you are right or wrong about this, but what you say does not seem to be consistent with the science quoted by the judge
Noted. I'm not intending to be offensive to anyone.
On your final point: this just seems to be a reiteration that most people are either male or female and under no confusion or doubt about that. I understand that, thanks.
0
0
You’d do better using the earth as round chill. Nowadays there’s a lot of evidence on the internet that it could be flat.
0
0
I understand that Heffalump. However the EA doesn’t include the circular get-out Taylor has applied - this has been created by the Courts.
The problem with saying a belief shouldn’t be protected because it is offensive to others is that it is entirely subjective. A strong belief in green issues was held to be protected - was any assessment carried out as to whether that was offensive to gammons? I think not. The circularity means this exception will only be applied to those whose offence is well publicised and favoured.
0
0
"The circularity means this exception will only be applied to those whose offence is well publicised and favoured."
yup
0
0
And my point is that if genuinely held beliefs can lose protection because they are offensive to others, there’s no reason (except dogma) that religions should too.
I understand the black-letter legislative distinction
0
0
AP, I understand what you say. The Judge however obviously has to apply the law as it stands.
0
1
Heh @ Heffers trying to invoke the new Hydroponics to blind those who don't agree.
0
1
eh?
0
1
10:15, Perry Mason.
0
1
Heff, there are only two sexes. You either have XY chromosomes and produce small gametes or XX chromosomes and produce large gametes. You put the two together to reproduce. There are conditions of sexual development that mean that a small number of people do not have obvious genitalia of one type or the other but that doesn't change the fact that there are two sexes. A small number of people are born with six fingers or toes, but that doesn't mean that the usual number for humans isn't five. There are always going to be genetic quirks, because evolution, but they do not change what is normal for humans.
I hope Maya appeals. Sadly, I don't think hers was the best test case as she was a contractor rather than an employee, but I am grateful that someone was willing to stick her head above the parapet.
0
0
nexis, I don't think anyone disputes what is normal
0
1
Heff helpfully setting out a number of potential exceptions that assist in proving the rule.
AND
no one is “assigned female at birth” - if female they are female.
god this is all so terrifyingly fvcked up and is the sort of doublethink that is truly a threat to all of our liberty and sanity (without exaggeration).
It is also the case that those who pompously describe themselves as “progressives”, and who embrace or flirt with this sort of doublethink, seem to have NO IDEA that this is a quiet but vital part of why THE VAST MAJORITY OF people will not vote for you! It’s mad.
0
0
I identify as having six fingers you bigot! Despite having been assigned cis five fingers at birth by the fascist reactionary medico legal patriarchy.
0
0
Para 8 of Deannas Statemrnt - she helps assign sex
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/expert-declaration-deanna-adkins-md
0
0
I didn’t mean “no one” literally bone head! this isn’t a legal opinion. of course, like the six fingered, there are exceptions that prove the rule. god help us....
0
0
You what now?
I posted that report in its entirety so people can read the “expert” evidence and decide for themselves whether this is a representation of the actual science or a self interested woke grifter milking this shiz as hard as they can at the expense of children.
0
0
Record numbers of gender reversal requests after they had a transition by the way.
0
0
It's interesting that the law and judges (including in the Employment Tribunal) are moving more and more towards the identity politics agenda and wide view of protected characteristics. When at the same time politically the election tends to suggest politics and the electorate are very much against this (I think the N.London focus on identity politics not jobs and the economy is one of the main reasons Labour lost).
Be interesting to see if this split continues or whether post Brexit a Tory govt with a big majority tries to rein in the move to subjectively based identity rights and pare down protected characteristics/discrimination laws esp in areas like trans rights were the view of Tayler J here that such views are "not acceptable" is I am pretty sure absolutely anathema to the vast majority of the population/voters.
0
0
Clergs, have you seen JK Rowling has entered the fray? She made her fortune writing about magical thoughts and people that can transform from one thing to another but Maya's judgment has been a step too far for her. Yes! Twitter frothers are there with threats of book burning (always an action of those on the side of truth and right, I note).
0
1
#IStandWithMaya
The law can only usefully codify what is generally accepted beliefs and values.
Passing a law to the contrary has zero impact on what people believe to be true.
The law may survive a while until it is rejected. The more strongly, strictly and frequently it is enforced the shorter it’s life
0
0
JK Rowling has been GC for ages.
0
1
And yet she's always in heels, lippy and done up to the nines
soooo critical
0
0
Dude, I'm sure she'll give you make up tips if you ask nicely
I don't think you really understand what being a feminist is, it certainly doesn't mean never wearing lipstick. You could just google this stuff you know. Do your own homework
0
1
Don’t you have an incel website to hang out with all your little incel and MGTOW buddies on?
0
0
I wish the men that want to go their own way would get on with it
0
1
What’s MGTOW ?
0
2
Haven’t they invented google in Cornwall yet?
0
0
men going their own way
0
1
I wish hateful wamyn would stop pretending that they represent feminism. You don't. What you think is hate speech. In the USA you wouldn't be allowed to go on feminist marches.
0
2
The only MGTOW adjacent on here is Clergham with her mental child hating.
0
0
Troll score 1/10. Weak.
0
0
I mean why even bother putting any remotely complex legal issues before ET judges? They are generally very average practitioners who have often worked as something like a commercial solicitor or a barrister who did 40% family / 30% PI / 20% chancery / 10% employment. Actual law is beyond them.
As an example, one region has appointment two new EJs. One being the top employment barrister in the region and a highly capable practitioner, who unsurprisingly puts the guys who have been EJs for 15 years to shame with his knowledge and approach to cases. Another who was a PSL and whose sole experience of employment law is writing articles.
Will be interesting to see what EAT thinks of this? There have been a few silly philosophical belief cases recently around things like vegetarianism and the philosophical belief in the right to own your own copyright.
0
0
Tayler judgement correctly following the ludicrous law promulgated by the zeolots Harman and Toynbee
All this demonstrates that Johnstone's first act should be to repeal the ridiculous Equalities Act 2010
'Polly Toynbee wrote that the bill, which was drafted under the guidance of Harriet Harman, was "Labour's biggest idea for 11 years.
A public-sector duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has... This new duty to narrow the gap would permeate every aspect of government policy. Its possible ramifications are mind-bogglingly immense."
One cabinet member described it as "socialism in one clause".
0
0
Isn’t one effect of this that those of us who are concerned about the erosion of women’s rights can longer express those concerns on this board?
0
1
Do we need the Equality Act to specifically protect people who have what I imagine are actually very common views on the binary nature of sex?
Not for me. The fact that some less worthy characteristics may be covered isn’t a good argument for this being covered. Philosophical belief is only included in the legislation because they were scared about trying to define religion.
Sacking somebody for being fat, for having blonde hair, for being ugly or for being poor is abhorrent but not protected by the Equality Act, and not should it be.
0
0
This is the Forstater case I assume? Judge is right as to the awfulness of her views - no place for that kind of prejudice - but I cannot see why it justifies terminating her employment.
0
0
You think saying someone cannot change sex is awful?
0
0
He's going to pretend to, yes clergs
0
0
She wasn’t employed and her employment wasn’t terminated, but apart from that top notch analysis Laz m9
0
0
the fact that it was a non-renewal of a contract makes fook all difference morally, and I’m not even remotely interested whether it makes a difference legally.
0
0
They could have not renewed her contract for having an ugly mole on her face, for having a bad lisp or for being fat and ugly.
She wouldn’t have had any recourse in those circumstances. Does a woman who unnecessarily decided to take to social media to provoke a public debate about these issues deserve more protection than them?
0
0
She wasn’t an employee Laz.
And I love people saying “you can sack someone for being fat but not being black (or another protected characteristic) and that’s TERRIBLE. When they don’t think it would be at all good to introduce legislation to protect such a wide and random other group of characteristics.
0
0
I know she was not an employee m88 I read the article, which had words in it and stuff.
0
0
Which is strange given you’ve referred to a non-renewal of a contract which is entirely irrelevant as she was seeking to rely on the applicant provisions of the EA. Nice try Laz
0
1
Who cares? the issue is: she was denied further paying work, whether having the legal status of an employee or otherwise, because of her views. Which is highly objectionable. The legal ins and outs really do not matter to that moral position. I’m not arguing with you about what the law is, or what her legal status was, or indeed at all. I’m telling you that the denial of work to her was morally illegitimate because it was derived solely from her airing of personal views unrelated to her work. Even though I agree with the judge that those views were repulsive.
Come on then mate let’s have some more “but er no I think you’ll find this was being handled under a34(7) rather than s58(2)(B) and that makes ALL the difference”. Do you not get it? I know you know more about this area of law than me, there’s no need to show me you’ve measure your cock and it’s exactly rly 5.7in. This is not about the law.
0
0
Heya m7 up early this morning
0
0
yeah jet lagged kids m99
0
0
Eek sounds painful. I just fixed my “oops i forgot my sister” issue with a cheapo but posh looking F&M hamper. Last day to order in time for Christmas. £85 + delivery and all organic, bonza.
Been on the phone since 9am Dhaka time about currency shit. Not slept yet, think I’ll skip it.
Much planned other than catching up on sleep?
0
0
finish Christmas shopping - all on amazon basically
visiting family - wife’s family for christmas then mine after
going to newcastle game with my dad, that will be fun
trying to write to 5,000 word essags
0
0
what’s your yule schedule m99?
0
0
Friend and daughter coming down to kernow on Saturday, shopping with friend while her daughter decorates on Sunday, couple of other friends over on Monday, then chillaxing for Christmas Day, football on Boxing Day, after that I’m not sure. Depends how long yas wants to stay down for.
She’s networking madly because she wants to attend London fashion week in feb but it’s like, less than two months away heh. Anyway I imagine she’ll go back to London which will give me some breathing space.
Cool thing about where I live is there’s a few towns etc along the coast and I have a total view of it all so if I fancy seeing the fireworks on New Years I just walk to the wall and look around and there’s fireworks going off in every direction.
Less cool is that Jasper doesn’t like fireworks.
Join the discussion