What would the funders think? Some of them are American Big Tech companies, and they might be frothing at the mouth over this ruling. Everybody knows that America accords the highest respect to the Funding Frothers.
Her firsthand summary of the affair helped me understand something. She explains that in the legal category of religion and belief, her protected belief is that: 1) Sex is binary (a fact), and 2) The sex binary matters (versus a belief that gender identity matters more than sex).
The interviewer Freddie Sayers was good to draw that point out, that her protected belief is 1 & 2 together (not 1 by itself).
@2 I can’t help but think that from an evolutionary perspective, in regard to the propogation of the species, that ‘gender identity’ as put forth by the trans cult matters very little. I guess an small argument could be mounted for mating rituals and attraction, but it’s still small potatoes given the proven (and overwhelming) evolutionary success of humans so accurately described by basic biology and everyday common sense.
Yes. It’s unfortunate that Maya’s case had to be presented this way: that a belief that sex exists and is important is a belief, when it’s a fact, in fact.
It’s closer to the position of atheism being a lack of belief in gods. The GC position is a lack of belief in gender bullshit, not a belief that gender is bullshit.
In a less silly world, Maya’s case could have been put that way. But then, in a less silly world, she would not have had to put it at all.
latsot @4, the decision yesterday included some text from the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) that effectively defines the word belief to include lack of belief (for EqA purposes). Also, in the previous decision (against Maya) and the present decision (for Maya), both discuss lack of belief explicitly. So the case that you want — to protect a lack of belief in gender theory — is supported in both decisions.
The two decisions differ in evaluating the fifth Grainger Criterion (“Grainger V”) that says Maya’s belief (which may include lack of belief) must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.” She won that point yesterday, and now lack of belief in gender theory is protected.
My point @2 was how her case used “fact” and “belief” in EqA terms. From the video at 21:43, with my bolding:
FREDDIE SAYERS: I suppose one slight hesitation I might have is this idea that it was a “philosophical belief”. So the legal defense was that you would be discriminated against for having the philosophical belief that men and women were different, almost as if it’s a sort of abstract, kooky, but “Hey, it’s her religion” so, you know, don’t touch it. Is there any sense in which that sets a new, dangerous precedent?
MAYA FORSTATER: I don’t think so. I mean (that was) we had to plead it that way because religion and belief is protected. And the thing that we pleaded was that my belief is that sex is real (biological, immutable), and that sex matters. And that’s the important part, that it’s not just that it’s a kind of scientific fact, but also, that it’s a social and political, and economic, salient, important thing.
And there are some people who don’t believe that. And if you (sort of) talk enough with them, they will say, “Yes, I understand, sex is real, but I think gender identity is more important.” So that’s the, kind of, the split.
But it was quite important that the judgment said a lot of things. And one of the things they clarified was that in law, sex is binary; sex is male and female. And (you know) some people think it’s a spectrum, and some people think people can be non-binary. But in UK law, that’s not recognized. And so, people can believe all kinds of things, but we know that the science says, women get pregnant, women are female (you know), and there are different reproductive roles for males and females, and those are reflected in law.
So it’s not that everyone can have their own rules, but everyone can have their own beliefs. And then, where you have rules, they’re there for people’s safety, or for (you know) medical information, or the census, those rules (you know) still have to be grounded in reality. We’re not (sort of) giving everything away.
My concern before this ruling was that her case would plead that the sex binary fact is a belief. But now I know, her case pleaded that the sex binary fact is a fact, and her belief is that sex matters (which is shorthand for what she said in more detail, in my bolding above).
Thanks, Dave. That’s very clear and it makes the result stronger than I thought. Excellent.
For those wishing to celebrate the victory by buying prints and t shirts (with a donation for each purchase going to https://niaendingviolence.org.uk/), The Famous Artist Birdy Rose has you covered:
What would the funders think? Some of them are American Big Tech companies, and they might be frothing at the mouth over this ruling. Everybody knows that America accords the highest respect to the Funding Frothers.
Her firsthand summary of the affair helped me understand something. She explains that in the legal category of religion and belief, her protected belief is that: 1) Sex is binary (a fact), and 2) The sex binary matters (versus a belief that gender identity matters more than sex).
The interviewer Freddie Sayers was good to draw that point out, that her protected belief is 1 & 2 together (not 1 by itself).
@2 I can’t help but think that from an evolutionary perspective, in regard to the propogation of the species, that ‘gender identity’ as put forth by the trans cult matters very little. I guess an small argument could be mounted for mating rituals and attraction, but it’s still small potatoes given the proven (and overwhelming) evolutionary success of humans so accurately described by basic biology and everyday common sense.
twiliter & Dave:
Yes. It’s unfortunate that Maya’s case had to be presented this way: that a belief that sex exists and is important is a belief, when it’s a fact, in fact.
It’s closer to the position of atheism being a lack of belief in gods. The GC position is a lack of belief in gender bullshit, not a belief that gender is bullshit.
In a less silly world, Maya’s case could have been put that way. But then, in a less silly world, she would not have had to put it at all.
latsot @4, the decision yesterday included some text from the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) that effectively defines the word belief to include lack of belief (for EqA purposes). Also, in the previous decision (against Maya) and the present decision (for Maya), both discuss lack of belief explicitly. So the case that you want — to protect a lack of belief in gender theory — is supported in both decisions.
The two decisions differ in evaluating the fifth Grainger Criterion (“Grainger V”) that says Maya’s belief (which may include lack of belief) must be “worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.” She won that point yesterday, and now lack of belief in gender theory is protected.
My point @2 was how her case used “fact” and “belief” in EqA terms. From the video at 21:43, with my bolding:
My concern before this ruling was that her case would plead that the sex binary fact is a belief. But now I know, her case pleaded that the sex binary fact is a fact, and her belief is that sex matters (which is shorthand for what she said in more detail, in my bolding above).
Ah that’s an interesting distinction. And one that…matters. Thanks Dave.
Thanks, Dave. That’s very clear and it makes the result stronger than I thought. Excellent.
For those wishing to celebrate the victory by buying prints and t shirts (with a donation for each purchase going to https://niaendingviolence.org.uk/), The Famous Artist Birdy Rose has you covered:
https://thefamousartistbirdyrose.com/collections/clothing