You should be a KC. Your ability to understand and articulate the underlying principles as well as the in-your-face realities of the law bowl me over. I, literally, breathe more easily after reading your cogent arguments and analyses of really tricky legalities. Go girl!
Hi Sarah. Thanks for this. One sentence, however, struck me as particularly interesting (as someone who has had to invoke recently these employment tribunal cases at work). You write “I accept that gender identity is important to some people and must be protected, just as with any other religion or philosophical belief that passes the Grainger test.” I’ve written quite a lot about this from a philosophical perspective, but as far as I am aware “gender identity” (as shorthand for the attendant theory) has not been subjected to the Grainger test in a ruling under the Equalities Act. Or have I missed something?!
It hasn’t so far as I know but in my view it would certainly pass. If we accept people may believe the son of god was born of a virgin, I can’t see how a belief in gender identity is any less ridiculous or any less worthy of protection. As ever, it is the manifestation of a belief when the problems start. Manifestation is a qualified right. Belief is not.
Thanks for the reply. Interesting though that it was only on appeal in Forstater that “gender critical” views were judged to have passed the test. Given that the immutability of sex would be regarded as commonsense-scientific the original ruling gave unreasonable weight to how GC beliefs impact the rights of others etc. But those rights derived from the ECHU/GRA stance on the then medical understanding of the gender dysphoria of transsexuals, and at that time “gender identity” was a psychiatrically identified pathology and not the normalised state many now take it to be. So given the previous rights focus and the changing landscape (the move away from medicalisation to self-identification) I wonder if a case can be made that what we might call “gender absolutist” views violate the rights of — say — women and are therefore do not meet the threshold for protected “philosophical” beliefs. Just a thought!
This is about belief v manifestation. People have a right to believe whatever stupid things they like. Its how they choose to manifest those beliefs that the problems start. The barrier to being excluded from Grainger is pretty low as I understand it - your belief would have to be dedicated to the destruction of others in order not to qualify. My person view is that this is not worth arguing about. Some people genuinely and firmly 'believe' that gender identity is an important thing. I disagree with them. But they may believe it, provided that they are not trying to curtail my rights and freedom to believe what I choose. I do not think people should be sacked or harassed at work for believing stupid things, so long as they are doing their jobs properly.
I agree of course with the latter point! But I do find how we’ve arrived where we are interesting. Having had to invoke Forstater at work in order to forestall any possible disciplinary action but finding myself unable to argue that being accused of transphobia on the grounds of one’s academic work (a rather low-level manifestation) is itself a discriminatory manifestation of gender absolutist beliefs has proved an informative experience!
I think it means the fact, condition, or practice of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc.
I’m not hostile to political diversity. I’m hostile to your attempt to limit diversity to political diversity.
The proposed rules would require barristers to promote diversity of social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc – with ‘etc’ including political and philosophical belief.
A barrister whose philosophical beliefs mean they can’t bring themselves to promote diversity of social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc is welcome to find a less important profession to join.
I love this and every word resonates with me. Thank you for being a sane voice in a mad world.
Thank you!
You should be a KC. Your ability to understand and articulate the underlying principles as well as the in-your-face realities of the law bowl me over. I, literally, breathe more easily after reading your cogent arguments and analyses of really tricky legalities. Go girl!
Thank you. I am glad my words are helpful.
Spot on again.
well done on behalf of all of us
Game, set and match Sarah 👏
Hi Sarah. Thanks for this. One sentence, however, struck me as particularly interesting (as someone who has had to invoke recently these employment tribunal cases at work). You write “I accept that gender identity is important to some people and must be protected, just as with any other religion or philosophical belief that passes the Grainger test.” I’ve written quite a lot about this from a philosophical perspective, but as far as I am aware “gender identity” (as shorthand for the attendant theory) has not been subjected to the Grainger test in a ruling under the Equalities Act. Or have I missed something?!
It hasn’t so far as I know but in my view it would certainly pass. If we accept people may believe the son of god was born of a virgin, I can’t see how a belief in gender identity is any less ridiculous or any less worthy of protection. As ever, it is the manifestation of a belief when the problems start. Manifestation is a qualified right. Belief is not.
Thanks for the reply. Interesting though that it was only on appeal in Forstater that “gender critical” views were judged to have passed the test. Given that the immutability of sex would be regarded as commonsense-scientific the original ruling gave unreasonable weight to how GC beliefs impact the rights of others etc. But those rights derived from the ECHU/GRA stance on the then medical understanding of the gender dysphoria of transsexuals, and at that time “gender identity” was a psychiatrically identified pathology and not the normalised state many now take it to be. So given the previous rights focus and the changing landscape (the move away from medicalisation to self-identification) I wonder if a case can be made that what we might call “gender absolutist” views violate the rights of — say — women and are therefore do not meet the threshold for protected “philosophical” beliefs. Just a thought!
This is about belief v manifestation. People have a right to believe whatever stupid things they like. Its how they choose to manifest those beliefs that the problems start. The barrier to being excluded from Grainger is pretty low as I understand it - your belief would have to be dedicated to the destruction of others in order not to qualify. My person view is that this is not worth arguing about. Some people genuinely and firmly 'believe' that gender identity is an important thing. I disagree with them. But they may believe it, provided that they are not trying to curtail my rights and freedom to believe what I choose. I do not think people should be sacked or harassed at work for believing stupid things, so long as they are doing their jobs properly.
I agree of course with the latter point! But I do find how we’ve arrived where we are interesting. Having had to invoke Forstater at work in order to forestall any possible disciplinary action but finding myself unable to argue that being accused of transphobia on the grounds of one’s academic work (a rather low-level manifestation) is itself a discriminatory manifestation of gender absolutist beliefs has proved an informative experience!
Interesting. Why couldn’t you argue that?
“Refusing to recognise the harm done by a lack of respect for diversity of political thought is dangerous.”
Oh, so, so close. Just remove the words ‘of political thought’ and you’ll have it!
Define what you mean by ‘diversity’, how you will achieve it, and the extent to which you will sacrifice diversity of political thought to attain it.
You clearly know what the word means because you just used it (correctly) in a sentence. Why are you playing dumb?
I know what it means. I am curious as to what you think it means, given you reject ‘political’ diversity.
I think it means the fact, condition, or practice of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc.
Yes I would agree with that. So why your hostility to political diversity?
I’m not hostile to political diversity. I’m hostile to your attempt to limit diversity to political diversity.
The proposed rules would require barristers to promote diversity of social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc – with ‘etc’ including political and philosophical belief.
A barrister whose philosophical beliefs mean they can’t bring themselves to promote diversity of social and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations etc is welcome to find a less important profession to join.