UORIADS?
Is gender identity ideology unworthy of respect in a democratic society?
This is a thought experiment. It would seem reasonable to understand gender identity ideology - the set of beliefs and tenets that gives rise to otherwise sane people thinking that men can become women - as not worthy of respect. This is primarily because, apart from being preposterous, belief in genderwoo has, by becoming almost ubiquitous in some quarters of civil society, demonstrated that it is profoundly harmful. There is simply nothing to commend it. The obvious harms are to children who are led to believe that it is possible to be transgender (it isn’t, but this assertion needs qualifying), and to women who find that their single-sex spaces are being invaded by pretenders. To my mind, the most unsung of harms is to objective truth. A gender identity (were to to momentarily consider such a concept) is a lie. Giving that notion any kind of legitimacy is gaslighting the credulous. It implies the possibility of innate transgenderism. Now, someone can call themselves transgender, in much the same way as one could claim to be an artist; so, in that sense people can be transgender. In addition, once a person has been medicalised to become a simulacrum of the opposite sex, then we might say that they are transgender. So, the qualification we require is that nobody is naturally transgender - it is either a social affectation or class of medical malpractice victim. Gender identity ideology, then, demands our contempt and our opprobrium - but would such disrespect be lawful?
The concept of a belief being “worthy of respect in a democratic society” is defined in English law in the context of employment discrimination and human rights under the Equality Act 2010. This legal principle arrived in the public consciousness with Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] the result of which brought us the hashtag #WORIADS - Worthy of Respect In A Democratic Society, and was primarily clarified in the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010]. So, let’s take a look at these cases and how to test whether a belief is worthy of respect:
In Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010], the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) established criteria for determining whether a belief qualifies for protection under the Equality Act 2010. The case involved an employee, Tim Nicholson, who claimed he had been discriminated against due to his philosophical belief in climate change.
In his judgment, Justice Burton described how Mr Nicholson’s conviction could be tested for it to qualify as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010, these five tests are now referred to as the Grainger criteria:
Belief must be genuinely held: It cannot be an opinion or viewpoint based on current information; it must be sincerely believed by the individual.
Belief must be a belief and not an opinion: It must relate to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, rather than simply an intellectual position or viewpoint.
Belief must be cogent, serious, and cohesive: The belief must be clear and have a certain level of importance and substance.
Belief must be compatible with human dignity: It must not conflict with the rights of others or be incompatible with fundamental human dignity.
Belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society": It should not be harmful or incompatible with the principles of democracy, tolerance, and respect for human rights.
In Forstater v CGD Europe [2021], the tribunal applied these criteria to Maya Forstater, a researcher who claimed her contract was not renewed because of her gender-critical beliefs—namely, that biological sex is immutable and should not be conflated with gender identity. The tribunal ruled that her belief met the Grainger criteria and was thus protected under the law.
In particular, it was ruled that while gender-critical beliefs might offend or upset others, they were worthy of respect in a democratic society, provided that the expression of these beliefs did not amount to harassment or discrimination against others.
Our thought experiment, then, is to attempt to turn the Forstater case on its head, and apply the Grainger test to the opposing belief, the conviction that some people can have a gender identity that is at once equivalent to yet different from one’s sex.
In the first test, the belief must be genuinely held. The nature of indoctrination that is prevalent in society is such that a great many people who do believe in genderwoo would seem to do so sincerely. A pass, then.
The second test is that a belief must be a belief and not an opinion. The difference between the two in this test is that a belief relates to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and an opinion is an intellectual position or viewpoint. Given that ‘gender reassignment’ is already recognised in English law (a grave error), it seems reasonable to grant gender identity ideology belief status on this test (no matter how undeserving).
Thirdly, a belief must be cogent, serious, and cohesive. Well, here is where we can have some fun! A certain level of importance is undisputed (it is one of the biggest issues of our time). As for substance, there is none. Gender identity ideology is almost entirely incoherent. If its proponents were serious, then they would engage in serious debate - their capacity for that seems to be undetectable (curious then, how some aspects became enshrined in law!). Genderwoo should not pass this test, but if MPs cannot think straight, the same can be said of some judges.
The fourth test is: Belief must be compatible with human dignity: It must not conflict with the rights of others or be incompatible with fundamental human dignity. A slam-dunk for Team Reality! Gender identity ideology is patently incompatible with human dignity, it conflicts with children’s right to grow up healthy in body and mind, it conflicts with women’s rights. A clear fail.
Finally: a belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society": It should not be harmful or incompatible with the principles of democracy, tolerance, and respect for human rights. Gender identity ideology is harmful. Gender identity ideology is intolerant. Gender identity ideology does not respect human rights.
Genderwoo almost certainly fails test number three, and clearly fails tests four and five.
Gender identity ideology is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.
It is unworthy. #UORIADS
The belief in genderwoo is infringing women’s rights, it is harming children, it is corrupting our very sense of reality. Gender identity ideology does not meet the criteria to be a protected belief. There is a burning imperative for society to eliminate it entirely. We can start by not affording it any respect whatsoever, wherever you might encounter it. And if that means more court cases, then bring them on.