A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex, has won her case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The employer, CGD Europe (CGD), refused to renew Maya Forstater’s employment contract after she had posted tweets on gender recognition. Mrs Forstater had become engaged in the debate concerning proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which would allow trans people to self-identify and legally transition from the gender assigned to them at birth without a medical diagnosis. After complaints were raised claiming some of her tweets were ‘transphobic’, CGD did not renew her contract and Mrs Forstater lodged a discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal stating her protected characteristic was her beliefs.

The question for the Court was ‘is believing that there are just two biological sexes in human beings, and that it is impossible for a human being to literally change their sex’, a ‘philosophical belief’ for the purposes of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act). If it was, this would mean a person would not be allowed to be discriminated against for holding this view.

In the initial hearing at the Employment Tribunal, Judge James Tayler said that Mrs Forstater’s approach was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering”.

But Mrs Forstater appealed this decision and the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury, sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to decide whether the belief ‘Is worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and doesn’t conflict with the fundamental rights of others’. Justice Choudhury said that Mrs Forstater’s “gender-critical beliefs” did amount to a ‘philosophical belief’ and afford her protection under the Equality Act. Justice Choudhury held her views “did not seek to destroy the right of trans persons” and that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to assume her belief meant she would always ‘misgender’ a trans persons. Explaining that the original Tribunal had “erred in law”, adding that while her views “may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing” … “they must be tolerated in a pluralist society”. Mr Justice Choudhury also cautioned that “This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘mis-gender’ trans persons with impunity” and that “The claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else”.

In a statement following the ruling, Mrs Forstater said “I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters. Being a woman is a material reality. It is not a costume or a feeling. Institutions that pretend sex doesn’t matter become hostile places for women, in particular”.