Maya Forstater

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

Only beliefs worthy of protection in a democratic society. I genuinely cannot wait to hear the argument that beliefs against human rights are worthy of such protection. But @Docstockk clearly disagrees that any beliefs are worthy of protection, so popcorn out for the GC wars.

Lol. I don't think so. The fact that belief in islam or christianity are covered by the Equality Act does not mean that these beliefs (or others) should be the basis for other legislation.

Christians and Muslims only have their beliefs protected in so far as they cannot be discriminated against for those beliefs. You want your beliefs to be protected so you can discriminate against others!

It's strange how you want to compare your beliefs to religion though. The defining characteristic is they are based on faith not on evidence. When you reject the evidence offered from science and medicine then all you have left is "faith".

Wrong again. The relevant case law is Grainger vs Nicholson, which was about belief that climate change is real and important. "Belief" does not imply no evidence. http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/news-and-media/news/old-square-acting-in-two-prominent-cases-involving-transgender-issues …

I didn't actually say that "Belief" implies no evidence. I said you comparing your beliefs to religion is an admission on your part that YOUR beliefs have no evidential basis!