I clearly recall learning that Maya Forstater, an NGO researcher who lost her job in 2018 due to her gender-critical views, had been fired from her position. Since I agree with Forstater’s assessment of the significance of biological sex, this occurred in December 2019 and chilled me. Judge James Tayler ruled that her thoughts were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and were therefore not protected by the Equality Act or the content of the European Convention on Human Rights concerned with freedom of thought and expression. This decision was later overturned.
It is still not commonly acknowledged how significant this was. It was widely believed that it was lawful to fire someone for 18 months before this decision was overturned on appeal if they expressed the opinion that biological sex was immutable and different from gender identity (the sensation of being male or female), which for trans people means an experience of mental and physical mismatch. If we said what we thought, women like me—who don’t think everyone has a gender identity separate from their sex—ran the risk of being labeled bigots.
Maybe this sounds a little exaggerated. Women who are gender-critical have always had influential allies, including the author JK Rowling. Kemi Badenoch and other government officials are ardent supporters of the single-sex places and sports we support today. Yet Labour has given up on supporting self-ID, which allows a man to change the sex on their birth certificate without having their medical history examined. In light of all of this, you might assume that our status as a pariah (or potential pariah) was a blip.
You would be mistaken, though. Since all the major UK parties supported self-ID, issues have advanced. Less frequently found in fear estimates is gender-critical sexism, which contends that children’s rights and sexual politics are related. However, a number of court cases, most recently those of academic Jo Phoenix and social worker Rachel Meade, demonstrate that workplace discrimination against people who don’t support self-identification or think that “trans women are women” still exists.
Phoenix defeated the Open University in an employment court this year, marking the first instance of sex discrimination against an employee. The organization and its employees who worked together to draft an open letter and statements opposing the creation of a six-person gender-critical study group were harshly criticized in the ruling. Phoenix, a professor of criminology, was found to have been victimized, harassed, and effectively unfairly dismissed by the tribunal. Additionally, it claimed that some of those responsible for the assaults on her were “evasive and proved to tell the court the truth.” The school stated in a statement that it was debating whether to file an appeal.
Meade’s situation, on the other hand, had nothing to do with how she behaved at work. This seems unbelievable, but keep in mind that Forstater was also disciplined for posting these opinions on social media during her free time. The accusations against Meade were based on a list of Facebook comments she had shared with an exclusive group of about 40 “friends” regarding sex law transformation. One of them complained to her supervisor and said she was transphobic. Social Work England (SWE) issued a punishment for her misconduct. She was given a 13-month suspension from her work by the Westminster government. Additionally, two coworkers were fired for failing to express concerns.
Meade, like Phoenix, prevailed in the case she presented as a result. She had been harassed, according to the court, by her employer and regulator. Both women’s compensation may be decided at a later time. However, a statement made by Social Work England demonstrates how political the organization’s stance was. Gender-critical individuals, according to the statement, “are unlikely to accept that trans people who have socially and/or medically transitioned from one gender to another, are as a matter of fact, science and real people of their chosen. Given how it handles Meade, it is evident that SWE believes people can choose their sex—not just for legal registration through the gender certification process instituted by the previous Labour government, but also for “fact, biology, and reality” – even if they haven’t received any medical care and their transition is solely social (clothes, name changes, etc.). The fundamental tenet of gender-critical perception is that this is untrue.
Phoenix and Meade may be viewed as one-offs if they were the only instances of this kind of oppression. Companies will soon catch up to a burgeoning field of case law, according to some discrimination lawyers. However, other gender-conscious individuals have experienced similar cruelty. Denise Fahmy was accused of harassing Arts Council England last year after the judge noted that a director’s remarks “opened the door” to a complaint against her and insults that included references to “neo-Nazis” that were spread among coworkers. One of the LGB Alliance’s members and a lawyer named Allison Bailey suffered discrimination at Garden Court Chambers. Bailey’s attempt to hold Stonewall, a gay and transgender rights charity that provides education, counsel, and awards to
employers, responsible for inciting her coworkers to discriminate against her, failed, but she will try again in an appeal.
Three distinct lawsuits against the Green Party and two more against the Open University are even pending. A constructive dismissal case is currently being brought by a former staff of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Different women have spoken and written about losing job opportunities as a result of their beliefs, such as dancer Rosie Kay and children’s writer Rachel Rooney, but they have not sued employers.
In the most recent quarter, there were more than 7,000 employment courts, and only a small portion of those cases involved gender-critical beliefs. Politics for women is a contentious subject. But while the problems are being resolved, it is a cop-out to address incidents like Phoenix’s and Meade’s as collateral damage. Progressives may be interested in the reasons why people are being shunned and punished for believing that sex differences are significant, regardless of their opinions on gender and sexuality. Trade unions, whose job it is to defend workers’ freedom, should do the same.
Since identity change, like faith or belief, is a protected characteristic by law, none of these women have been charged with harassing or discriminating against transgender people at work. Each person was singled out based on their level of conviction. Gender-critical women will continue to demand accountability for what has happened both outside of courthouses and inside of them. Yes, there are other issues to be concerned about. However, we won’t stop appreciating the bravery of women like Jo Phoenix and Rachel Meade or forget the 18 months when our long-held feminist beliefs about sex were formally declared “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
