JK Rowling weighs in behind Maya Forstater

Judgement over Maya Forstater case causes a storm, in large part because JK Rowling tweeted "IStandwithMaya" over the judge deciding there's no protection for someone holding a reasonable and sincere belief (not relevant to the job) as protected under the Equality Act. JKR's tweet has 34 000 'comments' and getting on for 200 000 'likes'.

There are reports in the national media, mainly taking off from JK Rowling as in the Telegraph. 
   Judge Tayler characterized Forstater’s comments as proving that “she considers there are two sexes, male and female, there is no spectrum in sex and there are no circumstances whatsoever in which a person can change from one sex to another, or to being of neither sex.” Is this not a reasonable belief? One that’s commonly held and worthy of protection? The judge also noted that “she would generally seek to be polite to trans persons and would usually seek to respect their choice of pronoun but would not feel bound to.” Again, is this not a reasonable position?


The judge himself notes that Forstater’s approach “is largely that currently adopted by the law, which still treats sex as binary as defined on a birth certificate.” And yet he decides that the answer to whether one should be protected from being fired, simply for politely expressing a belief in biological sex, is no.


The judge  dressed it up :

“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them”. 

  In context, he thinks a belief in biological sex violates the dignity of Trans-people, yet does not consider the problem that trans-belief in an internal male/female identity violates the dignity of believers in biological sex.     Nor did he consider the reality that trans-activists have created an intimidating and offensive social media environment for those adhering to a belief in biology.  Thus JK Rowling was subjected to flurry of abusive responses to her tweet.

Thus, the judgement gives reign to extremist religious groups to object to the hostile environment of poking fun at believers in Christ or Allah. Creationists can object to the hostile environment generated by teaching Darwin and science-based biological evolution.  

 J. K. Rowling is right. The judgement must be supported to Appeal and overturned.

Maya Forstater: first Legal Case that EqAct protects Sincere Beliefs

Are sincerely-held beliefs protected (like religious beliefs) under the Equality Act?

Maya Forstater was sacked in March 2019 by a US development charity after using her personal Twitter account to express the view that “male people are not women”. There was no claim that Maya pushed her views at work, simply that some workplace colleagues complained at her holding such views, with the employing body being pro-LGBT.  
The legal Appeal over her dismissal was widely reported, including by the quality papers.

  The Tribunal sat for over a week in November and has to decide whether the statement is a belief that should be protected under the Equality Act 2010, or just a personal opinion. Evidence was taken from philosophy and law professors, as well as a lifelong transwoman who lived as a woman but insisted she was still male in experiences from early life and because each of her cells had the male sex chromosome.

  “I believe that sex matters,” Ms Forstater wrote in her witness statement to the tribunal. “This belief is based on things that I regard as fundamental scientific facts, as well as basic logical constructs.

  “I have always believed that sex is a material reality, that being female or male is an immutable biological act, and that sex matters, and I always will.”

  To prove a sincere belief, it has to be shared by many, evidenced by a body of writings and supported by established authorities. Being tenable logically and scientifically are additional, which religions don’t necessarily share, but humanists can claim.

Links to reports and documents for the case are found here.
Ms Forstater's Appeal was crowd-funded (well over-subscribed), including by Martina Navratilova who was also sacked by the BBC for similarly 'offending' transgender activists. After decision in December, the case may well move on to a higher Court.

Welsh Govt attempt to get compulsory pro-trans RSE

Response to Welsh Gov. Consultation:  https://gov.wales/ensuring-access-full-curriculum

“Ensuring Access to the full curriculum”              November 2019

As a humanist and feminist, I endorse RSE reflecting the internationally recognised World Health Organisation (WHO) standards for sexuality education. This definition seeks to encourage schools to take a joined up approach to education around relationships and sexuality.

Including under s.26 understanding gender  is wrong  as the term ‘gender’ is socially constructed. It's much misused, including by WG. Missing from s.26 is· understanding puberty and the sexual human.  The item · the human body and development  fails to express this; it looks to refer to a biological description rather than hormones, feelings and emotions, which must be included in RSE.

  It's evident as in other places in the document that the Welsh Government is aiming to get its views of transgender and "LGBTQI+" (adopted from Stonewall) taken on board in the RSE curriculum.  Telling a child they can choose their sex or they may be 'born in the wrong body' is not just unscientific but also dangerous.  It encourages children onto the transgender pathway with huge consequences for their future that they cannot possibly understand.

Welsh people cannot possibly trust the WG and its many politicians and institutions who've declared themselves Stonewall allies to decide on a curriculum free from indoctrination.  You shouldn't trust yourselves to do it.  Whatever emerges will be controversial, which you cannot dismiss by promising "handled carefully".  It follows you have to allow people to choose to withdraw their children when they object to materials - as they objected to certain books in the Birmingham schools - though their Headteacher and LGBT advisor Andrew Moffatt insisted on keeping them.

I concentrate on the  EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT   https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-10/integrated-impact-assessment-ensuring-access-to-the-full-curriculum.pdf

This ignores the impact on girls as female sex, as in Stonewall's transgenderism, and is thus in breach of basic law.

    The sex-based rights of women are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (CEDAW).  It obliges the WG to take “appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.’’ (Article 3). 

Article 5 of the CEDAW states, “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.’’

   Nowhere do you mention combating gender stereotypes in the RSE syllabus.

Gender refers to “the roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for men and women… These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women).

   The concept of ‘gender identity’ would makes socially constructed stereotypes into an innate condition, thereby undermining women’s sex-based rights and in effect breaching CEDAW.   Rights relating to sexual orientation are compatible with women’s sex-based rights, and are necessary to enable lesbians, whose sexual orientation is towards other women, to fully exercise their sex-based rights.

We have no confidence that the WG, being allied with Stonewall, is capable of determining a curriculum that fully accords with CEDAW.

Your heading 

Gender Reassignment (the act of transitioning and Transgender people)   is false - the Equality Act 2010 and recent guidance on it defines the protected characteristic GR as transsexuals. Most 'transgender' people are hardly 'transitioning' and don't intend to undergo the surgical operations.

   You would "encourage schools to consider how they provide support and learning to LGBTQI+"  This is a quite different group to transsexuals (=GR) who are not given EqAct  'protection'.

You state 

"Research put forward in the Stonewall School Report Cymru (2017) shows LGBTQI+ identifying young people are still more likely to suffer poor mental health, self-harm and depression. The changes to RSE in the curriculum look to combat this by helping all learners feel emotionally and physically safe and secure so they are able to achieve their full potential."

  That 'research' by an advocacy group has been much criticised (see Transgendertrend) so cannot be used to determine changes to the curriculum. Many teenagers have mental issues, the LGBTQI+ "group" is Stonewall's fiction.  Pushing transgenderism in the curriculum is likely to worsen emotional states.  Tavistock statistics indicate that accepting teenagers onto the trans-pathway may worsen self harm and suicide ideation (Transgendertrend).  Moreover, it's proving to be emotionally upsetting for many girls to endure male-bodies in their school washrooms etc.; forcing on them the idea that they must accept this has emotional consequences and safety risks that you and Stonewall wrongly ignore.

You admit "there has been contention around these proposals and that could, if not handled carefully, have a negative impact on learners either in general or in the specific context of an individual school."  Are you alleging they were not handled carefully in Birmingham?  It's likely that some schools/governors in Wales will likewise be unable to handle parent protests "carefully", so Wales should keep the parents' right of withdrawal.

Religion, belief and non-belief

You accept "for RE, a decision to not to include a right to withdraw in the new curriculum will have a negative impact on some religious groups. Based on the evidence we have been able to gather, it will be a particular issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses and humanists".

This appears to be the only reference to humanists in the document.  Cardiff humanists are an active public group, so why did you talk only to Jehovah Witnesses and not to us humanists?

  Your excuse that some religious groups “may have option to send their children to a faith school” is unacceptable. You need some alternative for all.

  You admit "There is no current equivalent option for parents of other faiths to send their child to a school where RSE (or RE) will be taught in a way which reflects the tenets of their faith, while being pluralistic, within the maintained school system in Wales. [Such schools could be established following a school organisation proposal]"  There is no practical proposal for this - maintain the right-to-withdraw until there are options for the large majority, including anti-trans humanists.

  

You use the protected characteristic  Sex / Gender  and write of  "disadvantage based on gender"

That’s a travesty!  The Equality Act 2010 defines the p.c. as Sex.  This Equality Assessment has to follow that definition.  Under-18s cannot change their gender (Gender Recognition Act); this section has to be concerned solely with disadvantage based on Sex.

Boys who claim a female ’gender identity’ are being enabled to access opportunities and protections set aside for girls.. This constitutes a form of discrimination against females, and endangers women’s fundamental rights to safety, dignity and equality.  This assessment has to admit this 'impact' on girls. 

The WG is in breach of CEDAW (above) by adopting Stonewall’s conflation of their notion of gender with sex;  sex is defined by the UN “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women). 

   You have apparently engaged with Jehovah Witnesses, but not with Women’s groups concerned about protecting the rights of women and girls, Fair Play for Women etc. Your bias against girls/women in ignoring our rights is outrageous.  I refer you to the Declaration on Women’s sex-based rights, that's been well publicised and supported since launched in March. Your whole section has to be withdrawn and reconsidered.

Sexual orientation (Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual)

I strongly object to the inclusion of  “TQI+ learners” under sexual orientation.  This is a Stonewall fiction.  LGB does not include sexual fetishes.  The Welsh provision for Trans caters only for over-18s, like the GRAct, so not school "learners".  

It's factually wrong that the rights of LGBTQI+ people to be treated with equality are protected in law.  I take issue with Stonewall-influenced training which shows in this false statement by you.  It detracts from the real need of the LGB group for recognition of their Protected Characteristic, uncontaminated by TQI+.  Further, your misrepresentation of the law (according to Stonewall) looks deliberate - did you never check this basic point?

   

You have engaged with Jehovah Witnesses, but not with LGB groups (eg. LGB Alliance, Lesbian Rights Alliance); these do not accept that Stonewall any longer represents LGB or L alone.  Why did you not try to engage with them?

Human Rights and UN Conventions

Your insertion of transgenderism  into the curriculum. as also traditional RE, breaches Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and  religion. 

Cults propagating such views have to be excluded from our schools, though their beliefs may be discussed like beliefs in astrology and an after-life.  Welsh RSE can cover serious religions, but give priority to humanism as a belief system rooted in a scientific approach. 

Not including a Right to Withdraw and the pluralism requirement:

You say "The Welsh Government considers the proposals for RE and RSE are compliant with the Convention Rights".  But you haven't considered the rights of girls impacted by your promotion of transgender ideas and even fellow 'learners', and you haven't considered that this is indoctrination, breaching Article 9 as interpreted by the ECHR.

Therefore, the parents’ right-to-withdraw must be preserved and strengthened.

Anne Greagsby (completed posthumously)