I was surprised to hear on the radio today that someone had to appeal a dismissal from work (it was actually 'contract not renewed' - I have since looked up the case of Maya Forstater) for claiming that biological sex cannot be changed. Forstater won the appeal. However there are expressions of disappointment from some spokespeople for transgender organisations. This is baffling and disappointing. Here is a recent statement from the British Medical Journal:
"Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.
Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?
Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.
It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ"
In case there is any misunderstanding, I fully support those who classify their gender as something other than the two main (there are others including XYY but they are relatively rare) biological sexes. But their biological sex and gender may not be the same. It's simple, really
The judgement today states "“Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society."
The other viewpoint is this "Louise Rea, a solicitor at the law firm Bates Wells, which advised the CGD, called the decision “concerning” and “a much narrower interpretation of the previously understood position that a belief which conflicts with the fundamental rights of others will not be protected.
“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”"
I am not sure what Maya Forstater's axe is here or why she wants to grind it, but she describes herself as holding "gender-critical views". I suspect the law will have to be changed so that if someone wants to insist that, for example, Jayne County is 'really a man' they can only do so in a biological sex-specific context, for example, they are a GP and Jayne is seeking HRT.
"Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.
Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?
Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.
It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ"
In case there is any misunderstanding, I fully support those who classify their gender as something other than the two main (there are others including XYY but they are relatively rare) biological sexes. But their biological sex and gender may not be the same. It's simple, really
The judgement today states "“Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society."
The other viewpoint is this "Louise Rea, a solicitor at the law firm Bates Wells, which advised the CGD, called the decision “concerning” and “a much narrower interpretation of the previously understood position that a belief which conflicts with the fundamental rights of others will not be protected.
“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”"
I am not sure what Maya Forstater's axe is here or why she wants to grind it, but she describes herself as holding "gender-critical views". I suspect the law will have to be changed so that if someone wants to insist that, for example, Jayne County is 'really a man' they can only do so in a biological sex-specific context, for example, they are a GP and Jayne is seeking HRT.
