Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[shuttlt]

What's wrong with believing in biological sex? What's transphobic about asserting that biological sex is binary and immutable in humans? These things are scientific facts. Why shouldn't belief in scientific facts be protected?

Maybe transphobic here is being used in the same way as your more up-to-date definition of misogynistic? Once one starts to include the presumed social effects of believing things, and ideas of systemic transphobia or misogyny then we are pretty much inevitably taking an ideological view. Somehow, the ideology always a kind of progressive, intersectional, rewritten Marxist class analysis.

 

[Vixen]

It has to be a "passive" belief in the sense you are using it as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality act so any one doing the above would be in breach of the Equality act.

How do you weigh up whose rights take precedence? For example, suppose a person with 'a belief in biological sex' denies a job to a transgender/transexual on the grounds they want a person of 'biological' sex in a role where it is not clear that sex is relevant. For example, a PE teacher.

Does the person with a belief in biological sex have the right to deny the transexual/transgender PE teacher a job simply on the grounds he or she is transexual/transgender?

I think Judge Tayler summed it up in his five-point criteria for being recognised under Section 10 of the Equality Act:

The preliminary hearing was held to determine whether her tweets – which included statements such as ‘men cannot change into women’ – should be protected under section 10 of the Equality Act, which covers philosophical belief.

But yesterday Judge Tayler released a 26-page judgment saying this could not be the case, concluding that Forstater was “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,” he added.

Personnel Today

IOW Judge Tayler grasped straight away the inhumane element of allowing this philosophical belief', which he ruled met the other criteria of being a genuine one.

 

[Elaedith]

How do you weigh up whose rights take precedence? For example, suppose a person with 'a belief in biological sex' denies a job to a transgender/transexual on the grounds they want a person of 'biological' sex in a role where it is not clear that sex is relevant. For example, a PE teacher.

You can't require a person of a particular biological sex where it is not clear that sex is relevant, because sex is a protected characteristic. You can only discriminate on the basis of sex in specific circumstances, where it is listed as an exception in the Equality Act. Therefore in most circumstances, it is completely irrelevant how much weight somebody personally places on the biological sex versus the gender identity of a transgender person.

Does the person with a belief in biological sex have the right to deny the transexual/transgender PE teacher a job simply on the grounds he or she is transexual/transgender?

Nobody can deny a person a job on simply on the grounds that they are transgender, because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. You might be able to deny a person a job on the basis of their biological sex, regardless of their identity, in some very specific circumstances. The Equality Act says that even somebody with a GRC can be treated as being the sex recorded at birth when it is a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate aim (rape counsellor and sex-segregated sports are given as examples).

I think Judge Tayler summed it up in his five-point criteria for being recognised under Section 10 of the Equality Act:

Personnel Today

IOW Judge Tayler grasped straight away the inhumane element of allowing this philosophical belief', which he ruled met the other criteria of being a genuine one.

Judge Tayler beclowned himself by not even being able to distinguish between a belief being protected and a particular manifestation of a belief being protected. He also referred to Forstater having misgendered somebody when it was accidental, and happened after she was dismissed in any case, and engaged in silly speculation about creating a hostile environment on the basis of nothing, when it was actually her colleagues who created the hostile environment.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is not just a passive belief though, is? It affects your transgender/transexual work colleague who when confronted at the Ladies or Gents toilets is told, 'You can't come in here' and there is nothing he or she can do about it. How is that different from stopping women at the door of the boardroom and saying, men only?

How is stopping a cis man from entering the women’s restroom different than stopping a woman from entering a boardroom?

So many arguments in favor of “trans rights”, including this one, are logically indistinguishable from arguments against any form of sex segregation. But you aren’t actually opposed to sex segregation. Which is why we can conclude that the arguments are not actually based on principles, but merely convenience, and dismiss them outright.

 

[theprestige]

Protected characteristics under the Equality act are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Under religion or belief the act is worded as "Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief."

The courts have decided the test of a "philosophical belief" is broad for instance it covers someone who is a vegan. And recently certain views on matters such as transexuals have been accepted by the court to be a valid "philosophical belief".

The explanatory notes for a philosophical belief are:

"The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian."​

Note the law and courts are not concerned with any factual bases for a philosophical belief the same way they are not concerned with any factual bases for a religious belief. A court deciding that a particular belief is a philosophical belief is not passing any judgment on the validity of the belief.

Interesting. My trans-exclusionary belief is very much "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available" to us about biology in mammals. That seems like it would be unprotected in the UK, and if I expressed such a belief in public I'd run the risk of being done for hate speech or whatever the crime is called across the pond.

 

[Darat]

Interesting. My trans-exclusionary belief is very much "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available" to us about biology in mammals. That seems like it would be unprotected in the UK, and if I expressed such a belief in public I'd run the risk of being done for hate speech or whatever the crime is called across the pond.

Don't get where you've got that from. This is talking about the Equality Act.

 

[theprestige]

Don't get where you've got that from. This is talking about the Equality Act.

"... or whatever the crime is called across the pond."

In the context of the Equality Act, then, it seems my trans-exclusionary belief would not be protected under the terms you cited. Since it is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available".

 

[Aber]

In the context of the Equality Act, then, it seems my trans-exclusionary belief would not be protected under the terms you cited. Since it is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available".

See the Forstater judgement

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

where her belief was stated as:

“The Claimant holds the belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. She considers that statements such as “woman means adult human female” or “trans women are male” are statements of neutral fact and are not expressions of antipathy towards trans people or “transphobic”.

and was judged to be protected.

 

[Darat]

"... or whatever the crime is called across the pond."

In the context of the Equality Act, then, it seems my trans-exclusionary belief would not be protected under the terms you cited. Since it is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available".

Those views would fall under "philosophical belief" - a court has already made that call.

 

[theprestige]

Those views would fall under "philosophical belief" - a court has already made that call.

That's weird to me, since the plain language you cited seems to exclude anything that is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available".

Do you happen to have a link to the court's reasoning for why opinions based on the present state of information available - as all good science-based beliefs should be - are excluded from that criteria and protected under the Equality Act?

 

[theprestige]

See the Forstater judgement

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

where her belief was stated as:



and was judged to be protected.

I'm not asking about her belief. I'm asking about mine. Mine is based on the present state of information available to us about human biology. According to the plain language cited by Darat, my belief would not be protected under the Equality Act. If I go before a judge, am I supposed to pretend my belief is faith-based rather than science-based, in order to get a favorable judgement?

 

[Rolfe]

I remember Maya Forstater and others being unhappy about this state of affairs. To have a belief in a proven scientific fact upheld, not because it was a proven scientific fact (which the judge said he didn't have to rule on), but because the belief itself was held to be "worthy of respect". It could just as easily have been a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

[Darat]

I'm not asking about her belief. I'm asking about mine. Mine is based on the present state of information available to us about human biology. According to the plain language cited by Darat, my belief would not be protected under the Equality Act. If I go before a judge, am I supposed to pretend my belief is faith-based rather than science-based, in order to get a favorable judgement?

The courts have made judgements that do not tally with your reading of the legislation. The courts and therefore the law is not bothered about your claim about your belief. (With the caveats in the legislation.)

ETA: I think the confusion comes from reading "It must be a belief and not merely an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available." outside it's context in the legislation - the test for a protected belief is:

• The belief must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief and not merely an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

So they are looking for something that is a worldview, a system of belief that informs how someone lives their life.

 

[Darat]

I remember Maya Forstater and others being unhappy about this state of affairs. To have a belief in a proven scientific fact upheld, not because it was a proven scientific fact (which the judge said he didn't have to rule on), but because the belief itself was held to be "worthy of respect". It could just as easily have been a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

The courts have interpreted the legislation as broadly or I suppose you can say as narrowly as possible given our human rights.

I think it is a good thing that the courts are not making decisions about why someone believes in something.

 

[theprestige]

The courts have made judgements that do not tally with your reading of the legislation. The courts and therefore the law is not bothered about your claim about your belief. (With the caveats in the legislation.)

Right, and I'm trying to discover (and hopefully understand) the court's reasoning, because the outcome you're reporting seems to contradict the plain language.

I totally understand where Forstater is coming from.

I suppose I could argue that while belief in the physical disparity arising from binary sex in mammals is based in science, my beliefs that this should therefore exclude transsexuals from sex-segregated spaces are philosophical.

This goes back to the principle that science can tell us "is" but never "should". Sex segregation is important to me for philosophical reasons.

 

[Darat]

Right, and I'm trying to discover (and hopefully understand) the court's reasoning, because the outcome you're reporting seems to contradict the plain language.

I totally understand where Forstater is coming from.

I suppose I could argue that while belief in the physical disparity arising from binary sex in mammals is based in science, my beliefs that this should therefore exclude transsexuals from sex-segregated spaces are philosophical.

This goes back to the principle that science can tell us "is" but never "should". Sex segregation is important to me for philosophical reasons.

I think you put it well and clearer than I have in my ETA above.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are correct. Nobody has made a medical or scientific study of the validity of transgender identity. In fact, if somebody uses the term 'validity of transgender identity', that is enough to know that their position is not based on science. Science-oriented researchers and clinicians do not use terms such as 'validity' unless they are talking about scientific validity. As Dr Cantor said in a quote I posted earlier, 'validity' in a scientific sense means something is objectively measurable and falsifiable. Not only is 'gender identity' currently not either of these things, those promoting gender identity ideology are attracted by the fact that the concept is unfalsifiable (people who promote pseudoscience are attracted by ideas that are unfalsifiable because it means that they can't be shown to be wrong, which they think is a virtue). You do not hear the term 'validity of identity' in any science-based area of medicine or clinical psychology. The use of such terms is a sign of subordination of science to ideology.

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the scientific discipline of psychiatry, in which your vaunted yardsticks of measurability and falsifiability are seldom valid (oooh see what I did there!). If you're talking about microbiology or particle physics, then your definition of scientific rigour is in the right ballpark. But (unless you want to write off the whole of psychiatry and psychology as bogus pseudoscience), those rules simply don't apply to studies of the human psyche.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nobody has made a medical/scientific assessment of the validity of transgender identity.*

I've imparted my findings to the participants in this thread. The reception has been mixed.

---
*I've actually been thinking a lot about your premise lately, and hope to have a longer post addressing it in the next day or so.

And I was just letting you know how impressed I am that you have got all of this so right and those in the vanguard of the scientific, medical, political and judicial communities all over the western world have got it so wrong!

I might write to all those bodies myself and invite them to take a look at a discussion thread on a small internet forum, so that they might better understand how they are wrong and you are right. I'm sure society at large would be considerably better off if they could be made to see the error of their collective ways. The Daily Mail would be mighty pleased as well

 

[theprestige]

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the scientific discipline of psychiatry, in which your vaunted yardsticks of measurability and falsifiability are seldom valid (oooh see what I did there!). If you're talking about microbiology or particle physics, then your definition of scientific rigour is in the right ballpark. But (unless you want to write off the whole of psychiatry and psychology as bogus pseudoscience), those rules simply don't apply to studies of the human psyche.

Cool story, but it doesn't explain why you've been unable to come up with any citations of this concept of scientific rigor in psychiatry. No citations of scientifically valid gender identity, as understood by psychiatrists.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you put it well and clearer than I have in my ETA above.

Yes. I mean, people are free to voice as much general anti-transgender animus as they see fit. Just as I am free to voice as much general anti-Everton-Football-Club-supporter animus as I see fit*.

But cross the line into discriminating against someone because of their transgender identity, or harassing one or more individuals on account of their transgender identity, or making threats against transgender people on account of their transgender identity.... then know that the law will be coming after you


* In reality, however, I don't actually go in for voicing animus about any individual or group: I view it as an ugly and unpleasant character trait, but y'know, that's just me.....