Although, it will likely be a long time before we know the outcome, everybody that cares about employment rights should be paying attention to this hearing tomorrow.

Should the original ruling to be upheld and set a precedent, the result would be chilling. https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1386609372353159168

That so many on the purported "left" don't understand or care about the impact of this ruling on employment rights is yet more evidence (to my mind) of the hollowed out, individualist, performative faux-radicalism of so much of the very-online vocal "left" in the UK.

Rendering a belief unprotected means you can be discriminated against *merely for believing it*, no matter how you act. Even if you never bring it to work. Even if you never say it aloud. If accused, you would be forced to disavow it or risk the consequences. So, McCarthyism.

It would mean that anybody who recognizes that sex is real, immutable and politically important, could be sacked unless they recant. It would make one side in a live political debate - in fact, the status quo of proposed GRA reform - unspeakable, at the risk of unemployment.

It would render Marx and Engels unsayable. That the entire political analysis of the exploitation of reproductive labour as the bedrock of capitalism could not be described accurately, and you could not admit to believing it, for you could be lawfully discriminated against.

I have zero expectation that there will be any cooling down of this conflict, or any apologies, or moment of reflection, should this appeal ultimately be successful, but I can't comprehend a world in which this illogic is allowed to stand.

I personally think the original ruling is in my view self-refuting. Were it upheld, it would render the protections for sexuality in the Equality Act unenforcible - because anybody who considers themselves exclusively same-sex attracted, could be sacked.

It is self-refuting because the GRA and EA both include exemptions that would be rendered null, since acknowledging the basis on which they exist could get you sacked.

It violates the very legislation that form the basis of the judgement.

Commentators - especially in the US - have consistently misrepresented this case, and flat-out got wrong what was at issue. There have been two years of lies and smears since the outset, and objecting to its draconian overreach precipitated the cancellation of JK Rowling.

This is the sort of judgment that the Labour Party - my party - *should* be vocally opposed to, yet they have displayed at best ambivalence, and at worst outright hostility to those who are concerned about the impact of this case, and what has happened to those who have spoken up

If you're not paying close attention to this, you should be - if only because if this appeal fails and sets precedent, you better have your beliefs in order.