@bdb484 In some cases they may be, but if one makes a personal/political identity out of promoting and spreading that belief almost as an ecclesiastical evangelist, then that story becomes different I would think. If it assumes a more dogmatic, less fluid and changing character almost as a religion.

@Harper-ReinstateMonica sorry, I think I’m missing the essence of your comment? What does Starbucks have to do with anything?

@bdb484 and I say that with reference to both sides of the question: I think of what you suggest is right it needs still to be reconciled with how belief in climate change having man made cause is so protected.

I feel like that’s covered by attaining seriousness and cogency as in granger. Furthermore an opinion is defined in grainger as based on the present state of information available at the time.

A belief embedded in one’s personality typically doesn’t change based on new research. They stick through with it and criticise the new research. This is true especially with contentious heated issues like global warming. People seldomly change their minds about it.

Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others is a solid precedent that refusal to accept basic scientific facts can be covered.

@Seekinganswers "Heated issues" Pun indtended?

@ComicSansSeraphim lol

@ComicSansSeraphim Can you point to any specific spections of that ruling which supports your suggestion?

"Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender 'for all purposes' within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person's right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814‌​e39/…

Although arguably whether or not to recognise a person's stated gender is not a scientific question.

Seriously though, you just answered your own question with the quote so you don't need me here.

That is understandable, though there is arguably a subtle art to engaging neutrally around the legal questions, but you are making your propositions ever more confusing. I understand that the side of the trans debate that often appeals to science is the (comparatively, for lack of a better term) anti-trans sex-binarist side upheld by Forstater herself. The more trans-affirmative side of the debate on the other hand often rejects 'appeals to nature' as such etc.

So your previous comments remain quite confusing, compounded by the more recent quips.

Are you suggesting that in the cited case, Maya F. was protected in refusing to accept basic scientific facts (the basic scientific facts being that trans women are women)?

Correct.

I see, thanks for clarifying.