ANOTHER EXPLOSION in the gender wars went off on December 18th, when an employment tribunal in London ruled that stating “gender-critical” beliefs—for instance, that the words “man” and “woman” properly refer to males and females rather than to anyone who identifies as such—are a legitimate reason to lose one’s job. It found that the position of Maya Forstater, a 45-year-old tax expert who was sacked for tweeting that sex is immutable and cannot be changed, was “absolutist” and “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

Transgender-rights advocates celebrated the ruling. But others warned that it had worrying implications for the freedom of speech of employees, who can expect no legal protection if they make similar statements. The ruling received further attention when J.K. Rowling, the author of the “Harry Potter” books, tweeted her support for Ms Forstater.

The actions under scrutiny took place in March 2019, when Ms Forstater lost her job at the Centre for Global Development (CGD), a think-tank with headquarters in Washington and an office in London, where she worked. Colleagues complained to the company’s HR department about tweets she had written questioning government proposals to allow people to self-identify as the opposite sex. In bringing the case against her employer, Ms Forstater said she wanted to establish legal protection for people on any side of the gender debate to express their beliefs without fear of discrimination. The dispute was seen as a test case of whether the right to hold the belief that there are only two sexes is protected under British human-rights law.

The tribunal judge, James Tayler, said Ms Forstater was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a transgender person and the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person”. Under British law, if a person has transitioned—that is, undergone a two-year administrative process to be granted a gender-recognition certificate, which in turn allows them to be issued with a new birth certificate—then that person is legally of their new sex. Ms Forstater took the view that this was a “legal fiction”, stating in the tribunal that humans are incapable of truly changing sex.

That insistence was, in the judge’s view, “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”. He further ruled that “even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

“I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment,” Ms Forstater wrote in a response posted online. It removed women’s rights and the right to freedom of belief and speech, she added. “It gives judicial licence for women and men who speak up for objective truth and clear debate to be subject to aggression, bullying, no-platforming and economic punishment.”

Amanda Glassman of the CGD said the think-tank prided itself on supporting diversity. “We have always disputed the claimant’s allegations, and are grateful Judge Tayler has ruled in our favour regarding this particular matter,” she said. A spokesperson for Stonewall, a lobby group for gay and transgender people, said: “This case was about the importance of dignity and respect in the workplace. Trans people are facing huge levels of abuse and discrimination.”

The tribunal’s decision comes as another ruling is expected any day in a similar case. Harry Miller, a businessman who retweeted a poem that ridiculed trans women, discovered that his doing so was recorded as a hate incident by the police, who then called him and told him he needed to “check his thinking”. He requested, and was granted, a judicial review regarding the police guidelines that allow this to happen, which was held in November.

Fair Cop, a pressure-group set up by Mr Miller and others concerned about the way police deal with so-called “non-crime hate incidents” and especially statements deemed to be transphobic, expressed outrage at the ruling in Ms Forstater’s case. It went on: “Shocking as this judgment is, we welcome the fact that it unmasks the true demands of the trans-rights movement: that everybody in society must either believe in the falsehood that humans can change sex; or, at the very least, self-censor so that they appear to believe in it.”

Other groups have also expressed concern. Jodie Ginsberg of Index on Censorship, which campaigns for freedom of expression, said she was “deeply worried about what this judgment means for free speech”. Ms Forstater, meanwhile, says she is consulting her lawyers.