LAST week an employment appeal tribunal heard a plea for rational thought and freedom of expression against the ever-growing trans-tyranny.
Maya Forstater, a business consultant, believes that ‘biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender’ – a commonsense conviction which her appeal submission describes as ‘an important and widely-shared viewpoint in an ongoing political and cultural debate’.
It is indeed a perspective which spans the political and societal spectrum. Fixated feminists – whose number includes Forstater – and socially conservative contributors to TCW are normally cultural combatants, but on this occasion concur that ‘biological sex is immutable’ is an irrefutable statement of fact.
Forstater further states the blindingly obvious when declaring that no one should face ‘detriment, discipline or dismissal at work for expressing beliefs of this kind’. All the foregoing quotes appear in the introductory section of her appeal submission, which can be read here.
She previously argued that these self-evident beliefs had, along with her unwillingness to keep schtum, been why the Centre for Global Development did not renew her contract in 2018. In late 2019 an employment tribunal rejected her claim that she had been unfairly dismissed, ruling that her ‘philosophical belief’ was not protected by the Equality Act 2010.
More than a year on, last week a further tribunal heard Forstater’s appeal, which tacitly was supported by a submission from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC): ‘We are concerned that a contrary ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal could leave people unprotected against discrimination and harassment because they hold controversial beliefs.’
The EHRC further averred that the earlier tribunal had ‘wrongly conflated the question of whether the belief was protected with the way it was expressed’.
All support for Maya Forstater’s position is welcome. Nonetheless, it is absurd that maintaining biological sex to be unchangeable – which, mercifully, remains conventional wisdom – should have to become yet another legalistic and divisive ‘protected characteristic’. Furthermore, it is thoroughly depressing that the EHRC seemingly categorises this widespread view, rooted in basic biology, as a ‘controversial belief’.
It is crucial that Forstater’s appeal be upheld (the judgment remains due). As TCW reported following the earlier tribunal, the employment judge who previously found against her, James Tayler, was and remains one of more than 100 Diversity and Community Relations Judges (DCRJs), a voluntary group of jurists whose menacing mission includes ‘assisting other members of the judiciary with diversity and community relations issues and to act as diversity role models’.
His being a dutiful devotee of state-sanctioned ‘diversity’, it was no surprise that Tayler’s jaundiced judgment against Forstater, which can be read here, could have been dictated by the trans-partisans at Stonewall. From Section 87: ‘It is obvious how important being accorded their preferred pronouns and being able to describe their gender is to many trans-people. Calling a transwoman a man is likely to be profoundly distressing. It may be unlawful harassment.’
Much more shocking, though, was the frightening phraseology used not once but twice, in Sections 85 and 90, where Judge Tayler egregiously editorialised that Forstater being ‘absolutist in her view of sex . . . is not worthy of respect in a democratic society’.
That brazenly biased verdict exposed James Tayler as part judge, part propagandist. Tayler’s political proselytising did not go unnoticed, but regrettably was rewarded rather than punished. In July 2020, seven months after his pejorative pronouncement against Forstater, it was announced: ‘The Queen has appointed James Tayler to be a Circuit Judge . . . [he] will be known as His Honour Judge James Tayler.’
Not that the Queen was to blame: Her Majesty appointed Tayler, the ‘diversity role model’ and abetter of trans-tyranny, ‘on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Robert Buckland QC MP’ – just one more dispiriting surrender by yet another counterfeit Conservative.