So you won't be supporting the legal case that argues 'gender critical' views should be protected in law?
Brill. I look forward to reading your piece explaining why @MForstater is wrong to be doing just that.
(Unless, of course, it's only trans women's views you disagree w).
-
“Gender reassignment” might not mean that but even the EA2010 is clear that protection isn’t reliant on any form of medical intervention whatsoever.pic.twitter.com/nTRPbvBq2a
Correct. Surgery is a personal decision. What the EqA says is that a person shouldn't be discriminated against because of transitioning (in any way) eg they should lose their job, or be treated less favourably at work. It doesn't mean their sex has actually or legally changed.
-
-
Let’s say we just accept that bit so we can let it go; how is it related to “the legal case that argues 'gender critical' views should be protected in law”?
-
"Religion and belief" is a protected characteristic. You should not be discriminated against or harassed at work or as a customer/service user etc... because of your belief or lack of belief
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It also says that in the course of work you shouldn't harass them ... and by spreading (not holding) your gender critical views (being transphobic) you are harassing other people; therefore your "beliefs" can't be protected!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.