header-logo header-logo

Gender critical cases: making bad law?

169190
The law is tying itself in knots over gender critical cases. A new approach is needed urgently to make the UK safer for trans people, says Oscar Davies
  • In recent gender critical cases, judges have taken the wrong approach, permitting the erosion of trans and non-binary people’s rights.
  • Judges must focus on what the belief is, and whether it contains elements of transphobia.
  • If a belief is protected, the manifestations must comply with the Equality Act 2010, or the employer is likely to be justified in sanctioning the employee. Sex has its place, but gender identity—and trans identity—must be respected.

‘Gender critical’ cases are a hot seat of litigation in the UK. But are judges getting it right in their approach?

A ‘belief’ can be protected in certain circumstances under s 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Section 10 states: ‘Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.’

For a philosophical belief to be protected —ie, so you can seek compensation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll