Maya Forstater

So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?

It is not just about my views. There already is the Mackereth decision, which named he view incompatible with criterion 5. The question is whether this incompatibility is conditional on the view being applied at work, or absolute. I'd prefer "conditional".

The Mackereth decision did not just say that the employer had a legitimate aim to restrict expression of the view, it named *the view itself* incompatible with human dignity. And this is the precedent you work with. The Christian Legal Centre poisoned the well for you.

This would be more clean-cut if you did not attempt to submit an anti-trans work about development, in my view. The work was rightly rejected as incompatible with the values of the company. They could perhaps claim that you intended to keep submitting such incompatible works?

My preferred outcome would be an ironclad work-personal border. As in, your views were rightly NOT protected when you attempted to express them at work, but expressing them off work under a disclaimer should not have figured in work decisions.

(The work "Let;s Talk About Sex" is also in my view bad scholarship, as it talks about women's rights and fails to take into account CEDAW GRs 28 and 35 which clearly include trans women as women. However I don't think they claim they rejected it for tat reason?)

It really doesn't though. Because if the international community was going to redefine something as fundamental as the meaning of "woman" from female person to "anyone who says they are a woman", it wouldn't be something you could do by sleight of hand in para 18 of a CEDAW GR