Gender-critical opinions and philosophical belief: Forstater again
Regular readers will be aware of Ms M Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors  UKET 2200909/2019, which we noted here: a wrongful dismissal case in which Maya Forstater argued unsuccessfully that her belief that “sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity” was a protected philosophical belief within the terms of s.10 Equality Act 2010. She appealed, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the recent hearing by the EAT.
The EHRC has published a statement about its intervention, urging the EAT to view a gender-critical belief that sex is biological and cannot be changed as a protected philosophical belief. The EHRC argues that, legally, there is a difference between holding a belief and how that belief is manifested and contends that the lower tribunal in Ms Forstater’s case wrongly conflated the question of whether or not the belief was protected with the way in which it was expressed. The full text of the EHRC’s submission is here.
The EAT’s determination has not yet been handed down. Watch this space.