It wasn’t holocaust denial or support for Isis that led to Maya Forstater pleading her case at an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT); it was her insistence that there are two sexes of human being and that this matters.

One of these things is not like the others.

Central to the case in Forstater’s favour is Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. Categorising Forstater’s observation about the biological reality of sex a “belief” seems topsy-turvy, but as noted in EHRC skeleton papers, “A belief may be theistic but may too be based in a belief that something is a scientific reality.”

In the original ruling Judge Tayler stated: “The claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

“Freedom of speech emphatically extends to that which might offend … to insist on preferred pronouns is compelled speech.”

Why shouldn't "Holocaust denial" be protected under these guidelines? Either you have freedom of speech and thought, or you don't. And you're certainly not going to have "a victory for freedom of speech" if you give up the battle in the first line.