To boy or not to boy?
"Maya Forstater is a tax expert and a feminist and is the protagonist in a bitter legal battle about sex, gender and free speech.
She believes the body someone is born with determines their sex, and that sex is immutable and cannot be changed or lost.
Ms Forstater lost a test case at an employment tribunal in 2019, arguing that her belief should have legal protection.
The judge ruled her views were "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"."
I am disinclined to engage in TERF wars over transgender, but I think that on any of these complex issues, any opportunity to define any point of black and white ought to be taken, even if it is only a single pixel.
Based on the evidence in the article the issue appears to be that the lady thinks that a person born and raised as a man should not get a woman's award.
This appears to be an example and she holds various views in the same vein.
I have no opinion on whether she is right or not, I think it would turn on the specific facts, but the question here is of whether that opinion is worthy of respect in a democratic society.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that she seeks to demonise or discriminate against transgender people: the evidence presented in the article suggests the opposite. Her argument is that trans people are not the same as people of the gender that they have transitioned to.
That argument is fundamentally true.
We might reasonably agree, and even legislate that they should be treated the same, and in the future we might reach a point where the differences are inconsequential, but we are not there and treating the same is not being the same.
Ergo, it appears that this is a ruling that the truth is unworthy of respect in a democratic society and that simply cannot be right.
Well. Can I ask that if people wish to debate this emotive issue, they do so in an adult and fair manner. Thank you.
Is that request pre-emptive or did I inadvertently say something offensive?
the decision is under appeal. Some commentators think the Employment Judge got it wrong, and that there may be a clarification of Grainger.
Some commentators think the Employment Judge got it wrong, and that there may be a clarification of Grainger.
We might argue that the judge was right to get it wrong, in order to get that clarification.
It does not surprise me that you might argue such a thing.
Joshua Rozenberg has written an interesting blog setting out the issues: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/can-you-believe-sex-is-immutable
The [url= https://hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf ]skeleton argument[/url] for the appeal.
(From the blog)
I had it in mind that for a belief to be a protected belief it had to form a part of a philosophical belief structure.
Did that idea come from the guidance notes or did I imagine it?