The jargon always distorts the “journalism.” Haroon Siddique at the Guardian doing a legal analysis of the Allison Bailey ruling:

The most significant ruling came in the Forstater case when, in June last year a panel led by the president of the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) held that gender-critical views were a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

The decision paved the way not just for Forstater winning her case, which was then sent back to an employment tribunal to be heard in full, but also Bailey’s victory against her chambers, Garden Court.

Lucy Lewis, employment partner at Lewis Silkin, said: “If you want to engage in public debate, if you are clear you are doing that in your personal capacity, then I think that there is now much stronger protection as a result of these two cases in your ability to do that.”

Bosses at Garden Court Chambers (GCC) argued that Bailey’s tweets, one of which spoke of “intimidation, fear & coercion that are driving the @stonewalluk trans self-id agenda” went beyond her beliefs, which the Forstater case had established were protected, but this was rejected by the tribunal.

How could that statement “go beyond” Bailey’s beliefs? Is it because the claim is so obviously factual that it doesn’t count as a belief? Is it only beliefs that have no factual basis that are protected? Because that would be weird.

Lewis said as a result of the Forstater case “the bar is high” as views have to be “objectively offensive” but what the cases – both unusually involving high-profile individuals on social media, each with more than 50,000 Twitter followers – had left unanswered was how to deal with such a conflict of views in the actual workplace, for example directed towards a colleague.

She said the only case to address this to date was when a doctor, David Mackereth, who insisted on misgendering trans people while assessing benefit claimants lost a claim against the government that he was discriminated against on the basis of his religious beliefs, in another decision published earlier this month.

Ok stop right there. What is “misgendering”?

How have so many otherwise reasonable adult people become convinced that there’s such a thing as “misgendering” and that it’s a social crime? How and why did we get so entrenched in such a silly counter-reality ideology that people can be punished for the made-up faux pas of “misgendering”?

That was in line with the EAT’s decision in the Forstater case which it said “does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity”.

But we don’t accept the claim that we are “misgendering.” We don’t agree that there is such a thing. We think we’re absolutely allowed to know who is what sex, for our own safety among other reasons, and that that should not cannot must not be made a crime or a workplace no-no. It’s idiotic to accuse a doctor of “misgendering” people when all that means is that the doctor got their sex right. You don’t want doctors getting people’s sex wrong!

Getting people’s sex right is far more important than coddling the fantasies of a small number of people who have been mentally captured by a fiction.