2SLGBTQQIA+

[andyA700]

8.4L 154 said:

andyA700 said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Definitely seems like we’re at a turning point with this madness. A few mainstream figures have managed to point out the madness without getting fired or censored.

Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.

The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.

It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.

I think the result of the Maya Forstater case yesterday, is heartening for those of us who want to see common sense prevail. There are genuine transsexuals and transgender people who have been harmed by the actions of the extremist TRA's, but it is the 51% of the population - women - who have been harmed the most by the extremists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929

All maya forstaters case does is emphasize the need for a strong and clear social media and EDI policy. She didn't so much win as CDG lost and completely shat the bed in dealing with her and started from the position with no social media policies and an established office environment akin to the local pub.

The judgement was based on a sanitised and early version of her behaviour which was found by the panel not to amount to offensive, bearing in mind her EAT had protected her belief on the basis that everything was protected short of eliminationist and Natzisum. Its likely her later manifestation of gender critical beliefs would have failed the grainger test as she has subsequently called for the elimination of trans people.

Forstater is also only an ET and it doesn't sit right under Mackereth which found that it was lawful to let go of an employee for failing to follow established policy (requiring him not to misgender trans people) because of their (religious) belief, Mackereth is a higher and binding court and policies were something CDG didn't have. Forstater will be an outlier case which has already been largely neutered by Mackereth.

The takeaway for HR departments is not that transphobia is ok in the work place its that good policies on social media and behaviour are essential. Any company who is on the other end of an EA from a trans employee for letting a Forstater mk 2 continue will find out quickly that trans people are a protected group also.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

[8.4L 154]

andyA700 said:

8.4L 154 said:

andyA700 said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Definitely seems like we’re at a turning point with this madness. A few mainstream figures have managed to point out the madness without getting fired or censored.

Now sports organisations are able to get back to normal and athletes seem more confident to speak out and question this nonsense about people born male competing in women's sports.

The last few years has been the definition of give and inch and take a mile. Good people from all communities genuinely trying to make better lives and understanding for minorities and women and then people went to the absolute extreme. Extremists genuinely wanting to allow people born male to compete in female strength and combat sport have done the trans community a horrific disservice.

It needed dragging back to the centre, away from the lunatics.

I think the result of the Maya Forstater case yesterday, is heartening for those of us who want to see common sense prevail. There are genuine transsexuals and transgender people who have been harmed by the actions of the extremist TRA's, but it is the 51% of the population - women - who have been harmed the most by the extremists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929

All maya forstaters case does is emphasize the need for a strong and clear social media and EDI policy. She didn't so much win as CDG lost and completely shat the bed in dealing with her and started from the position with no social media policies and an established office environment akin to the local pub.

The judgement was based on a sanitised and early version of her behaviour which was found by the panel not to amount to offensive, bearing in mind her EAT had protected her belief on the basis that everything was protected short of eliminationist and Natzisum. Its likely her later manifestation of gender critical beliefs would have failed the grainger test as she has subsequently called for the elimination of trans people.

Forstater is also only an ET and it doesn't sit right under Mackereth which found that it was lawful to let go of an employee for failing to follow established policy (requiring him not to misgender trans people) because of their (religious) belief, Mackereth is a higher and binding court and policies were something CDG didn't have. Forstater will be an outlier case which has already been largely neutered by Mackereth.

The takeaway for HR departments is not that transphobia is ok in the work place its that good policies on social media and behaviour are essential. Any company who is on the other end of an EA from a trans employee for letting a Forstater mk 2 continue will find out quickly that trans people are a protected group also.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

Yes well done, have a cookie.

Now who do you think it applies to. Here's a hint, Trans People

[Gecko1978]

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

[8.4L 154]

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

[Gecko1978]

8.4L 154 said:

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

What she got sacked for was not a crime an subsequently she changed her views....so while she might not be nice she was wrongfullying dismissed. Not all people will agree with all views I guess

[chrispmartha]

Gecko1978 said:

8.4L 154 said:

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

What she got sacked for was not a crime an subsequently she changed her views....so while she might not be nice she was wrongfullying dismissed. Not all people will agree with all views I guess

She wasn’t sacked.

[andyA700]

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

That is absolutely correct, but TRA's equate what she said with the extreme case scenario which you have eluded to.

[andyA700]

chrispmartha said:

Gecko1978 said:

8.4L 154 said:

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

What she got sacked for was not a crime an subsequently she changed her views....so while she might not be nice she was wrongfullying dismissed. Not all people will agree with all views I guess

The tribunal decided that she lost her employment by being discriminated against for her beliefs. Her contract was not renewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater
She wasn’t sacked.

[chrispmartha]

andyA700 said:

chrispmartha said:

Gecko1978 said:

8.4L 154 said:

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

What she got sacked for was not a crime an subsequently she changed her views....so while she might not be nice she was wrongfullying dismissed. Not all people will agree with all views I guess

The tribunal decided that she lost her employment by being discriminated against for her beliefs. Her contract was not renewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater
She wasn’t sacked.

She was a consultant who didn't have her contract renewed - she wasn't an employee.

[RobbieTheTruth]

chrispmartha said:

andyA700 said:

chrispmartha said:

Gecko1978 said:

8.4L 154 said:

Gecko1978 said:

andyA700 said:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic of the EA2010.

I don't think the lady in question was saying trans people had no right to live, more that they are not changing sex but identity which does not make them the same as thoes of a female sex

Not at the time but she has subsequently signed the whrc/wdi declaration which calls for the revoking of transgender rights and elimination of transgenderism. Such beliefs are incapable of protection under Grainger 5 and were not included in her tribunal or EAT case where she protected a tiny sanitation of gender critical beliefs.

What she got sacked for was not a crime an subsequently she changed her views....so while she might not be nice she was wrongfullying dismissed. Not all people will agree with all views I guess

The tribunal decided that she lost her employment by being discriminated against for her beliefs. Her contract was not renewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater
She wasn’t sacked.

She was a consultant who didn't have her contract renewed - she wasn't an employee.

Either way - common sense prevailed and there seems to be a shift away from the extremism which is great news all round, especially for the trans community, who are at risk seeing irreparable harm done to their community by lunatics supporting people born male being able to compete against women in combat sport etc.

[Gecko1978]

RobbieTheTruth said:

Either way - common sense prevailed and there seems to be a shift away from the extremism which is great news all round, especially for the trans community, who are at risk seeing irreparable harm done to their community by lunatics supporting people born male being able to compete against women in combat sport etc.

I do wonder about this. Its like what % of car drivers like cars and read PH, what % of football fans go to games, what % of trans People support the likes of fallon fox