Sex as protected characteristics(7 Posts)
Today I've been looking at The Equalities Act 2010, which has listed as no.11 Sex
In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.*
Which is all a bit vague but is there something there we gender critical can use in some way? Can we claim our sex segregated areas are protected by this act? Or does the gender portion -
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.*
undo section 11?
As far as I know sex segregated spaces are specifically protected.under the act, and it actually says somewhere that gender reassignment doesn't "count" for this sort of space.
However, everyone seems to be ignoring this and publishing and working to guidelines which say the exact.opposite.
So why on earth is it being ignored?
There needs to be some shouting about this, specifically quoting the law.
In fact I'm going to print it out.
If you are a trans identifying male and dont get the job because you are a trans person, that is discrimination.
If you are a trans identifying male and are told you do not qualify for the job as Miscarriage Support Group Leader, that is not discrimination.
You don't fit the job description - someone who has been through a miscarriage and trained as a counsellor.
Same as its not discriminating against me to tell me I cannot join or run a support group for survivors of penile or prostate cancer. I just dont qualify.
Our sex segregated spaces and services are protected by the EA: Schedule 3 Part 7 para 28, explanatory notes here.
Also it is legal to stipulate that a single sex job is not open to TIMs if it's a genuine occupational requirement and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: Schedule 9, Part 1, General, explanatory notes here.
These exceptions are buried deep down towards the end of a very big piece of legislation. As you'll have noticed, law in its raw form is incredibly difficult for ordinary people to decipher, so it gets interpreted into more human-friendly 'guidance' (and we all know who's been writing the guidance, don't we ) and then all the different organisations (public bodies, businesses, charities and NFP, community groups etc.) turn the guidance into 'policy'.
Most orgs don't have the time, money or inclination to pick over the actual law and decide for themselves whether the guidelines they are using interpret the law correctly. For most, this is just box ticking they have to do before they can get on with their real work. So they'll pick something off-the-shelf that seems to be widely endorsed and they'll base their policies on what eveybody else is using and trust they are complying with the law.
No org is going to go off-piste on this unless their whole raison d'etre clashes badly with the trans agenda. It's too risky, most especially for the masses of small charities and NFPs who are reliant on government funding to survive.
And trans is incredibly complex in all sorts of ways. It's taken me years to get any sort of grip on what it is, what it means, how it's legislated and the effects it has in everyday life. And still, I keep coming across new angles I hadn't considered. If you just want to e.g. run a gym, make some money and not get sued, you're not going to touch this with a barge pole, not least because you haven't a scooby what any of it means. You'll gratefully grab whatever guidance you're spoonfed by the 'experts' and build your policies in line with that.
It's possible to challenge public bodies specifically on how they have interpreted the law via a process called judicial review, but I think it requires an actual named person/people who have been adversely affected to bring a case.
We need proper lawyers.
Join the discussion
Please login first.