Read on Twitter
I realise a lot of people are worried about the Forstater case, so I& #39;d like to offer some reassurance which I hope is warranted.
FIRSTLY: I think there& #39;s a chance Forstater will & #39;win& #39; the current appeal, though it& #39;s no means certain, BUT
FIRSTLY: I think there& #39;s a chance Forstater will & #39;win& #39; the current appeal, though it& #39;s no means certain, BUT
This doesn& #39;t mean that anyone claiming a similar & #39;belief& #39; will be able to go into work and misgender their colleagues, what I think she will & #39;win& #39; is that the following can be a protected belief.
That sounds alarming? Well it might, but if it is held that this is a protected belief I& #39;d submit a few things flow from that, and ONE is that the opposite is ALSO a protected belief. Chrisitianity is a protected belief, so is atheism. Saying something is a protected belief
DOES NOT mean that the law of the land thinks it& #39;s true. So if Forstater wins, then I can also claim that believing trans women are women/trans men are men and that & #39;sex& #39; is not determinant of gender is a protected belief.
OH DEAR. The GCs didn& #39;t think of that one, but then they& #39;re not very bright. All it means is that we shouldn& #39;t be subject to UNLAWFUL discrimination because of that belief. It doesn& #39;t mean we can go into work and insult people.
It doesn& #39;t mean we can randomly throw people out of toilets and it doesn& #39;t necessarily mean that Forstater is is unfairly dismissed. If I had to put money on the outcome of Forstater& #39;s appeal, it would be one of three scenarios.
ONE she loses. She loses because Judge Tayler quite clearly set out his reasoning as to why he considered her particular & #39;absolutist& #39; belief when making his decision, and the supporting evidence.
