J.K. Rowling is well-known for her takes on the madness of the gender ideology, particularly defending such stances:

❶ Your gender is your biological sex, observed and recorded at birth, not “assigned at birth” as something that could later be changed.

❷ Trans people do exist, but the biological sex cannot be changed. Just because a male has undergone surgery and hormone treatment to become a “woman” does not imply that “accommodating trans identities” should override women’s sex-based rights, especially regarding fairness in sports or safety in prisons and bathrooms.

❸ Women are defined by their biological sex. There is no such thing as “pregnant people”! Only women can be pregnant. Gender-neutral language erases women’s identities and experiences.

Today, as I browsed X, I noticed this retweet:

Links:

From the press release:

Miss Bailey was expelled without warning from her vet’s practice in 2023. She alleged that her expulsion was due to her gender critical beliefs: she believes sex is binary, biological, immutable, and important — views that would have been entirely uncontroversial at any other time in history. She considers the belief that gender identity can override biological sex to be unevidenced, pseudoscientific, quasi-religious, and dangerous. She believes that gender identity ideology gained ground so quickly in the past decade because it was erroneously linked to LGB rights by self-interested lobby groups, with disastrous consequences for women and girls, children, the vulnerable, and the same-sex attracted, all lawful beliefs protected under equality legislation.

In its judgment, the Court has now agreed with Miss Bailey and found that her expulsion was unlawful and discriminatory.

The judgment includes at page 22 the following mandatory terminology that has been presented to Ms Bailey by her employer:

At §70:

There was extensive evidence during the trial about this document and the meeting. Ms Bailey says that Schuyler Bailar refers to gender critical women like her as “TERFS”. The acronym is for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. It is used widely in the social media posts in evidence in this case as a term of abuse.
The same account has called J.K. Rowling a transphobe and has said that Ms Rowling’s account of experiencing physical and sexual violence was a manipulation to target trans people.

Finally, at §§153-155:

At the first stage I am satisfied that Ms Bailey has proved on the balance of probabilities facts from which I can conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the practice has committed an act of unlawful discrimination. I will not repeat all of the points that I have just set out. Ms Bailey establishes the act of detriment – the termination. The hypothetical comparator is someone in the same position as Ms Bailey but without the protected characteristic. There was no argument but that if an effective cause of the termination was Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs that the comparison with the hypothetical comparator would be established.

The inference from primary facts is in my view established. I accept that there is evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff. However, the absence of current warnings, the non-application of the zero tolerance policy, the way in which the decision was taken, the denial of knowledge of Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs when on balance they were aware of them, Ms Cook’s evidence about the signing of termination letters being something the clinical director did when that is not what happened on the two previous occasions, when added to the evidence of the extensive discussion of Ms Bailey’s gender critical beliefs within the practice and denial of that by the Defendant’s witnesses is more than sufficient to pass the first stage.

It then falls to the Defendant to show that the decision was not taken on the prohibited ground and that the prohibited ground played no part in the decision. The Defendant fails. The evidence called by the defendant was unsatisfactory in a number of respects about knowledge of Ms Bailey and her gender critical beliefs within the practice. It was also unsatisfactory about the views held by senior members of staff on the sex/gender debate. Far from being satisfied by the Defendant that this played no part in the decision, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a culture within the practice which was contrary to Ms Bailey’s gender critical views. In my judgment that was a view shared by Ms Cook and Dr Munro. At least one of the things that people disliked about her was her belief. Having not accepted the evidence which sought to deny those views it seems to me that it is difficult to accept the evidence that the decision was taken solely on the basis of Ms Bailey’s behaviour.

Well, a swallow does not make a summer, but there’s still hope.

Oh, but there is still the topic of the “non-binary” and “gender-fluid” people.

To be continued… or not.