There a plenty of true things that a person can lose a job or opportunity for acknowledging because it upsets another person. Why should this be different?

Please name some of the "plenty of true things that a person can lose a job or opportunity of acknowledging" and specify in what countries or local jurisdictions you mean. I know that in countries like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and China, people can be fired and penalized for saying "plenty of true things" - but this traditionally hasn't been the case in countries with robust civil rights and freedom of speech.

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but it sounds like you think that firing and penalizing people for saying "true things" is a good thing, or at least justifiable. Exactly which "true things" do you think people should lose their jobs and other opportunities for saying?

Do you think people should lose their jobs and opportunities for saying these things ever, or only in certain settings?

Interestingly, the decision in the employment tribunal of Maya Forstater comes out tomorrow, July 6.

ETA: The tribunal has ruled in Forstater's favor on the main point: that the think tank/NGO she previously worked for did indeed illegally discriminate against and "victimise" her for the beliefs he expressed on Twitter and in other writings - namely that sex is real; sex has enormous implications in life, law and policy especially for female people; and human beings can't change sex.

In other words, the GC woman on whose account a judge of the UK High Court ruled that GC beliefs are legally protected under the EA of 2010, has won another huge victory not just for GC women and men, but for all working people, and for free speech in the UK.

The decision of the tribunal released today, which I am just beginning to read and haven't gotten through in entirety yet, says on page 2:

The Claimant holds the belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. She considers that statements such as “woman means adult human female” or “trans women are male” are statements of neutral fact and are not expressions of antipathy towards trans people or “transphobic”.

Page 3:

In the course of her evidence in the present hearing, Ms Forstater said the following about her belief, when asked about a tweet in which she referred to “literal delusions”: “I have made clear that I have used the word “woman” to mean adult female. It is impossible for a male to become female. It is possible to undergo a social transition. Anyone who believes a male can become female and give birth, that is a delusion. My belief is that sex is real and immutable. I haven’t expressed an opinion on gender.”

The tribunal has specifically ruled that although some might find them offensive, the following statements of Forstater's are simply "straightforward expressions" of her legally protected beliefs that are themselves lawful to say or write and "worthy of protection" even in at work, in work products and in contexts related to the workplace and work:

“other people are not compelled to accept it [the proposition that a transwoman is a woman] as relating to any material reality”

and

“a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality”.

The tribunal also has found that there was nothing objectionable or unlawful about instances

where Ms Forstater drew a comparison between transwomen and Rachel Dolezal...

the point that Ms Forstater was making – that there is an analogy to be drawn between someone who is white identifying as black and someone who is (according to gender critical belief) male identifying as a woman – did little more than assert her gender critical belief.

The tribunal found that

in the context of a discussion of whether recognising transwomen as female potentially posed a risk to women and girls

It was lawful and reasonable for Forstater to say

“the places that women and girls get assaulted and harassed are ‘normal life’”

This was not, as CGD’s counsel had argued, “catastrophising” but was instead “an unobjectionable observation in the course of the debate … not an objectively unreasonable observation to make”

The tribunal found that it was within Forstater's legally-protected rights to say that

allowing male-bodied individuals access to women-only spaces gave rise to “an increase in risks, threats and discomfort” to women and girls

And to describe

opposing views [to hers] as “stupid, dangerous or unfair”

And to refer to London banking executive Pips Bunce, who goes to his job in the City of London dressed as his alter ego "Pippa" a few days a week as a

“part time cross dresser”

(For those not aware: Bunce, a heterosexual father who is married to a woman, has been rewarded for his cross-dressing at work by being named one of Britain's "top women in business" by the Financial Times. Bunce has also been feted, showered with praised and given awards by "LGBTQ" orgs and media outlets for advancing "LGBTQ diversity and inclusion" and for being a model of "the LGBTQ" whose cross-dressing at work shows "courage and bravery" on behalf of "LGBTQ rights." Many others of course think that it's preposterous to say that straight white men who bring their cross-dressing kinks to work like Bunce are advancing gay rights, and believe that holding up Bunce as an admirable model of "the LGBTQ" makes a mockery of "the LGBTQ" and will cause outsiders to be less accepting, not more.)